f  UC-MRjLF 

4<5S 


$B    725    bHM 


il 


A  Review 


By  SAMUEL  M.  WILSON 


OF 


**Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission" 

By  Dr.  Archibald  Henderson 


.?     J 


A  Review 


By  SAMUEL  M.\ WILSON 


OF 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission" 

By  Dr.  Archibald  Henderson 


Exitus  acta  prohat 


Lexington,  Kentucky 
1920 


0^ 


REVIEW 

By  SAMUEL  M.   WILSON 

OF 

An  article,  by  Dr.  Archibald  Henderson,  entitled  "Isaac 
Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission,"  published,  first,  in  two  chap- 
ters, in  a  volume  by  Dr.  Henderson,  entitled  'The  Star  of 
Empire,"  and,  later,  as  the  leading  article  in  No.  4,  of  Vol.  VI, 
of  the  Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Review,  for  March,  1920, 
pages  451-469. 


"To  the  historian,  destitute  of  facts  for  his  text,  silence    \^ 
supercedes  commentary." — Humphrey  Marshall,  Hist,  of 
Ky.,  1812  Ed.,  page  9. 


The  chief  fault  the  writer  has  to  find  with  the  article  in 
question  is  with  certain  of  its  comments  and  conclusions  or 
characterizations,  and  not  with  those  facts  narrated,  which 
are  based  upon  indisputable  records.  The  quotation  extracted 
from  Marshall's  History  of  Kentucky  (Edition  of  1812)  bears 
more  directly  upon  the  errors  and  omissions  of  Marshall  him- 
self, which  appear  to  have  unconsciously  influenced  the  author 
of  the  paper  styled^  "Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission." 
These  errors  might  have  been  avoided  by  Marshall  and  their 
effect  on  later  historians,  beginning  with  Timothy  Pitkin,  in 
1828,  and  ending,  let  us  say,  with  Roosevelt,  Winsor,  Mc- 
Elroy  and  Dr.  Henderson,  might  have  been  minimized,  if 
Marshall  had  adhered  more  scrupulously  to  the  principle 
enunciated  by  him  so  tersely  and  so  oracularly  in  the  sentence 
quoted  above.  It  was  Macaulay,  I  believe,  who  long  ago 
ventured  the  observation  that  egotism  which  is  so  offensive  a 
fault  in  conversation,  is  oftentimes  an  alluring  quality  in 
written  composition,  and  assuredly  Humphrey  Marshall's 
haughty  self-assurance  in  his  histories  is  responsible  for  much 
of  the  weight  which  those  histories  have  had  with  later  writers. 


3 


5002 


"^ 


A  Review  BY  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

By  this  I  do  not  mean  to  deny  that  he  is  often  picturesque, 
sometimes  brilliant,  and,  nearly  always,  forceful  and  readable. 
But  his  facts  were  not  always  fairly  or  fully  presented  and  his 
conclusions  were  too  frequently  warped  and  colored  by  his 
intense  prejudices. 

The  paper  here  under  consideration  is,  in  my  opinion,  sub- 
ject to  criticism  in  that  it  does  not  reveal  a  very  marked  ad- 
vance over  the  effort  of  such  a  writer,  for  example,  as  Dr. 
Robert  McNutt  McElroy,  in  the  chapter  entitled,  "One  Phase 
of  the  Genet  Mission,"  published  as  Chapter  VI,  of  his  book, 
"Kentucky  in  the  Nation's  History." 

Comparing  this  article  by  Dr.  Henderson,  as  it  first  ap- 
peared in  the  book,  "The  Star  of  Empire,"  with  its  later  form 
as  it  appeared  in  the  Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Review,  one 
is  led  to  surmise  that  McElroy  may  have  influenced  the  changes 
or  modifications  which  slightly  differentiate  the  second  version 
from  the  first  version  of  this  paper.  However  this  may  be,  it 
is  to  be  regretted  that  Dr.  Henderson  did  not  seize  the  oppor- 
tunity presented  to  show  how  deficient  is  the  narrative  and 
how  unjust  and  ill-founded  are  some  of  the  comments  which 
disfigure  the  work  of  McElroy.  The  case  for  Isaac  Shelby 
might  have  been  materially  strengthened  in  the  revised  article 
but,  instead  of  that,  the  case  appears  to  be  accentuated  against 
him. 

It  is  plainly  evident  that  neither  Dr.  McElroy  nor  Dr. 
Henderson  made  any  use  of  Michaux's  Journal,  a  translation 
of  which  is  found  in  Vol.  Ill  of  Thwaite's  "Early  Western 
Travels,"  published  in  1903,  nor  of  the  "Clark  and  Genet 
Correspondence,"  as  published  in  the  Report  of  the  Historical 
Manuscripts  Commission,  of  the  American  Historical  Asso- 
ciation in  its  Annual  Report  for  1896.  McElroy  (p.  169,  note 
2,  and  p.  170,  notes  1  and  3),  cites  Michaux's  Instructions  and 
the  Correspondence  of  the  French  Ministers  of  the  United 
States,  1791-1797,  published  in  1903,  in  the  Seventh  Report  of 
the  Historical  Mss.  Com.,  of  the  American  Historical  Associa- 
tion, Vol.  II  (all  in  French  and  part  of  which  had  been  pre- 
viously published  in  1896) ,  but  he  seems  to  have  been  oblivious 
of  the  important  matter  contained  in  the  Report  published  in 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

1896,  and  of  other  important  source  materials  which  could 
have  been  found  with  the  slightest  diligence.  He  pays  not  the 
slightest  attention  to  "The  Mangourit  Correspondence  in 
Respect  to  Genet's  Attack  upon  the  Floridas,  1793-94,"  edited 
by  Frederick  J.  Turner,  and  published  by  the  American  His- 
torical Association,  in  its  report  for  1897,  pp.  290,  569-679,  nor 
to  the  pamphlet,  privately  printed  in  1899,  by  George  Clinton 
Genet,  entitled  "Washington,  Jefferson  and  Citizen  Genet, 
1793,"  nor  to  the  valuable  article  by  Frederick  J.  Turner, 
entitled  "The  Origin  of  Genet's  Projected  Attack  on  Louisiana 
and  the  Floridas,"  published  in  1898,  in  No.  4  of  Vol.  Ill  of 
the  American  Hist.  Review,  pp.  490-650,  nor  to  C.  DeWitt's 
Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  published  in  Paris  in  1861,  nor  to  a 
lot  of  other  interesting  authorities,  which  have  been  ignored  or 
thrown  into  the  discard.  McElroy  cites  Butler's  History  of 
Kentucky,  2d  Ed.  of  1836,  in  his  Bibliography,  but  he  mani- 
fests very  little  acquaintance  with  it.  His  citations  of  Butler 
appear  to  refer  to  the  1st  Edition  of  1834,  which,  on  this  par- 
ticular subject,  is  not  so  satisfactory  as  the  1836  edition.  Use 
is  made  by  Dr.  Henderson  of  a  portion  of  the  valuable  docu- 
ments published  as  Appendices  to  Butler's  History  of  Ken- 
tucky, 2d  Ed.,  but  little  or  no  account  has,  apparently,  been 
taken  of  Butler's  text,  dealing  with  the  same  subject.  (See, 
particularly,  pp.  222-235.)  The  following  sentence  from  Butler 
(p.  227)  will  illustrate  the  studied  unfairness  of  Shelby's  polit- 
ical adversary,  Humphrey  Marshall:  "These  (views)  histor- 
ical justice,  no  less  than  the  author's  deep  respect  for  the  great 
public  services  of  Governor  Shelby,  impels  him  to  record.  He 
is  more  eager  to  do  this,  because  this  defense,  though  in  part 
produced  by  a  motion  of  Mr.  H.  Marshall,  is  totally  omitted 
by  him  in  his  History."  (Marshall  had  introduced  the  Reso- 
lution of  November  12,  1794,  in  the  Ky.  Legislative  Session  of 
November,  1794,  which  called  forth  the  Governor's  message  of 
the  15th  November,  1794,  to  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
Kentucky.) 

The  Clark  and  Genet  Correspondence  (Am.  Hist.  Assoc. 
Report,  1896),  was  collected  and  edited  by  the  Historical 
Manuscripts  Commission  of  the  American  Historical  Associa- 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

tion,  and  that  Commission  was  composed  of  four  leading  his- 
torians of  the  country,  two  of  whom  were  J.  Franklin  Jameson 
and  Frederick  J.  Turner.  It  is  fairly  evident  that  the  actual 
work  was  done  by  Frederick  J.  Turner.  In  his  Introduction  to 
the  correspondence,  Turner  (at  page  934)  uses  this  language: 
'These  documents  seem  to  support  Shelby's  explanation." 
This  is  in  accord  with  the  conclusions  reached  by  Mann  Butler, 
sixty  years  before,  and  is  the  conclusion  which  most  commends 
itself  to  the  impartial  investigator  today. 

The  Correspondence  of  Clark  and  Genet  tends  to  show  that 
the  idea  of  an  armed  expedition  down  the  Mississippi  against 
the  Spanish  possessions  did  not  originate  with  Genet  but  with 
those  who  sent  Genet  to  America  and  with  George  Rogers 
Clark  himself,  who,  as  early  as  February  2  and  February  5, 
1793,  was  addressing  letters  on  the  subject  to  the  "French  Min- 
ister" to  the  United  States.  McElroy,  in  a  casual  sort  of  way 
(p.  170),  alludes  to  this  possibility,  saying,  "/i  seems  probable 
that  Clark  suggested  the  whole  scheme,  and  that  Jefferson,  the 
Secretary  of  State,  deliberately  encouraged  it."  He,  neverthe- 
less, exerts  himself  to  "whitewash"  Clark,  with  all  the  zeal  of 
a  special  pleader.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  plain  that  Clark 
was  keen  for  the  adventure,  just  as  he  had,  in  former  years, 
been  avid  for  employment  by  Spain,  and  lent  himself  to  the 
reciprocal  overtures  of  Genet,  Michaux  and  other  emissaries 
of  the  French  with  the  utmost  readiness  and  willingness. 

After  Genet  and  Clark,  the  central  figure  in  the  affair  was 
no  less  a  person  than  Thomas  Jefferson,  at  that  time  Secretary 
of  State  of  the  United  States.  Alexander  Johnston,  the  able 
expounder  of  American  History,  who,  until  his  untimely  death, 
occupied  the  chair  of  History  at  Princeton  University,  has 
said: 

"The  most  ambiguous  position  in  regard  to  the  whole 

affair  of  Genet  and  his  mission  is  that  of  Jefferson." 

(Lalor's  Cyc.  of  Political  Science.) 

Von  Hoist,  in  his  Constitutional  and  Political  History  of  the 
United  States,  Vol.  I,  p.  116,  says  that  Jefferson  so  far  hindered 
the  action  of  the  government  as  to  justify  the  charge  that  "he 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

played  a  masked  part,  and  valued  the  friendship  of  France 
more  than  the  honor  of  his  own  country."  Based  upon  Genet's 
dispatch  of  July  25,  1793,  to  the  French  Minister  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  Von  Hoist  charges  that  Jefferson  "indirectly,  but  with 
a  knowledge  of  Genet's  plan,  advocated  that  an  uprising  against 
Spanish  rule  in  Louisiana,  with  the  aid  of  the  Kentuckians, 
should  be  provoked."    Genet  had  written  home: 

"Mr.  Jefferson  me  parut  sentir  vivement  Tutilite  de  ce 
projet;  *  *  *  cependant  il  me  fit  entendre  qu'il  pensait 
qu'une  petite  irruption  spontanee  des  habitans  de  Ken- 
tukey  dans  la  Nouvelle-Orleans  pouvait  avancer  les 
choses;  il  me  mit  en  relation  avec  plusieurs  deputes  du 
Kentukey,  et  notamment  avec  Mr.  Brown." 

In  spite  of  all  this,  it  is  only  fair  to  say  that  Johnston 
endeavors  to  exonerate  Jefferson,  and  as  an  admirer  of  Jeffer- 
son, I  have  no  quarrel  with  his  vindication.  The  sense  of 
nationality  was  as  yet  but  embryonic  not  only  with  John 
Brown,  John  Breckinridge,  Isaac  Shelby,  and  others  of  Ken- 
tucky, but  with  George  Washington,  Thomas  Jefferson,  Henry 
Lee,  and  others  of  Virginia,  as  will  be  more  distinctly  shown 
before  this  review  is  ended.  Respecting  Washington's  Proc- 
lamation of  'Neutrality,'  of  April  22,  1793,  (which  nowhere 
uses  the  word  "neutrality"),  James  Madison  wrote  to  Jeffer- 
son, under  date  of  June  19,  1793:  "The  proclamation  was  in 
truth  a  most  unfortunate  error.  It  wounds  the  national  honor, 
by  seeming  to  disregard  the  stipulated  duties  to  France.  It 
wounds  the  popular  feelings  by  a  seeming  indifference  to  the 
cause  of  liberty."  (Rives,  Life  and  Times  of  James  Madison, 
Vol.  Ill,  pp.  334-335.)  (See,  also,  the  letters,  signed  'Hel- 
vidius,'  written  by  Madison,  in  answer  to  a  series  of  letters  by 
Hamilton,  signed  Tacificus.') 

Let  me  pause  here  to  say  that  Genet,  at  heart,  was  not  a 
bad  man.  It  is  established  by  documentary  evidence,  says  Von 
Hoist  (Vol.  I,  p.  117,  note  2),  "that  Genet  received  express  in- 
structions to  involve  the  United  States  in  the  war."  "His 
virtues,"  says  James  Parton,  in  an  interesting  article,  entitled, 
"The  Exploits  of  Edmond  Genet  in  the  United  States,"  pub- 
lished in  the  Atlantic  Monthly,  for  April,  1873,  (Vol.  XXXI, 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

pp.  385-405),  at  page  403,  "were  his  own;  his  errors  were  those 
of  the  time  in  which  he  was  called  upon  to  act."  Allowing  for 
the  difference  in  time  and  popular  sentiment,  his  conduct  was 
quite  as  decent  and  as  considerate  as  that  of  Von  Bernstorff, 
prior  to  his  expulsion  from  the  United  States,  in  1917.  A 
grandson  of  Genet,  by  the  way,  is  said  to  have  graduated  from 
the  United  States  Military  Academy,  at  West  Point,  and  to 
have  served  in  the  United  States  Army,  and  another  descendant 
was  killed  in  the  World  War.  Parton  opens  his  article,  men- 
tioned above,  with  this  striking  paragraph: 

*lt  seemed  an  odd  freak  of  destiny  that  sent  Edmond 
Genet,  a  protege  of  Marie  Antoinette,  to  represent  the 
Republic  of  France  in  the  United  States.  Gouverneur 
Morris,  in  his  neat,  uncompromising  manner,  sums  up  this 
young  diplomat,  aged  twenty-eight,  in  1793,  as  'a  man  of 
good  parts  and  very  good  education,  brother  to  the  queen's 
first  woman,  from  whence  his  fortune  originates.'  Even  so. 
He  was  a  brother  of  that  worthy  and  capable  Madame 
Campan,  first  femme  de  chambre  to  Marie  Antoinette,  and, 
after  the  queen's  death,  renowned  through  Europe  as  the 
head  of  a  seminary  for  young  ladies  in  Paris.  It  was  she 
who  wrote  a  hundred  circulars  with  her  own  hand  because 
she  had  not  money  to  get  them  printed,  and  received  sixty 
pupils  the  first  year, — Hortense,  ere  long,  from  Napoleon's 
own  hand." 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  article  under  review  does  not  suf- 
ficiently bring  out  the  relation  of  Genet  to  Michaux  and  of 
Jefferson  to  both  of  these  men,  before  Governor  Shelby  was 
ever  approached  on  the  subject  of  an  expedition  *'down  the 
river."  It  was  Jefferson  who,  at  the  instance  of  Genet,  gave  to 
Andre  Michaux  a  letter  of  introduction  to  Shelby,  fully  accred- 
iting Michaux,  not  only  as  a  botanist  and  man  of  science,  but 
as  the  trusted  political  friend  of  Genet,  the  French  Minister. 
When  Jefferson  did  this,  he  knew  that  Michaux  was  the  con- 
fidential agent  of  Genet.  He  could  not  fail  to  realize  that  the 
tendency  of  his  letter  of  introduction  would  be  to  throw  Gov- 
ernor Shelby  off  his  guard  and  lull  him  into  a  sense  of  security 
so  far  as  Genet  and  Michaux,  and  their  subordinates,  were 
concerned.     Genet  operated  on   Depauw    (not  Depeau  nor 

8 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

Delpeau) ,  LaChaise,  Mathurin,  and  Gignoux  (or  PisGignoux) , 
through  Michaux,  and  therefore,  Governor  Shelby's  bearing 
and  demeanor  toward  Depauw  and  LaChaise  can  only  be 
properly  understood  by  taking  into  account  the  fact  that  the 
way  for  their  reception  had  been  paved  by  Michaux,  who 
called  upon  Governor  Shelby,  armed  with  flattering  letters  of 
introduction  from  Thomas  Jefferson  and  John  Brown,  the 
latter  then  at  Philadelphia  as  U.  S.  Senator  from  Kentucky. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  fairly  apparent  from  Michaux's 
Journal  that  he  did  not  make  much  headway  with  Governor 
Shelby,  respecting  the  political  aspects  of  his  visit  to  Kentucky, 
for  he  fails  to  record  any  expression  or  utterance  of  Shelby's 
which  betokens  approval  of  or  sympathy  for  the  proposed  ex- 
pedition. He  called  to  see  Governor  Shelby  two  or  three  times, 
once  before  and  once  or  twice  after,  the  enterprise  had  col- 
lapsed, but  on  no  occasion  does  he  represent  the  Governor  as 
falling  in  with  the  plans  of  Clark  and  Genet.  The  contrary 
is  true  as  to  General  Ben  Logan,  George  Rogers  Clark,  Henry 
Lee  (of  Mason  County,  cousin  of  General  Henry  Lee,  Gov- 
ernor of  Virginia),  Alexander  D.  Orr  (at  that  time  a  Repre- 
sentative in  Congress  from  Kentucky),  Thomas  Barbee,  and 
others,  and,  in  a  qualified  way,  as  to  Col.  George  Nicholas. 
Read  Michaux's  Journal  and  judge  for  yourself.  My  personal 
opinion  is  that  Shelby's  transparent  honesty  and  integrity  re- 
pelled Michaux  and  it  may  be  doubted  whether  he  ever  directly 
broached  to  Shelby  the  subject  of  a  warlike  expedition  down 
the  Mississippi,  to  be  sponsored  by  responsible  citizens  of  Ken- 
tucky. Shelby's  attitude,  moreover,  taken  at  its  worst,  was 
simply  symptomatic  of  a  condition  that  existed  all  over  the 
country  and  was  by  no  means  limited  to  Kentucky  or  the 
Southwest.  In  the  Presidential  election  of  1792,  Kentucky's 
four  electoral  votes  were  cast  for  Jefferson.  Of  the  fourteen 
(14)  delegates  who  represented  the  Kentucky  District  in  the 
Virginia  Convention  of  1788,  only  three  (3),  one  of  whom  was 
Humphrey  Marshall,  acting  contrary  to  the  known  will  of  his 
constituents,  voted  in  favor  of  ratifying  the  Federal  Consti- 
tution. Marshall,  by  the  way,  had  been  denied  membership  in 
the  Danville  Political  Club  in  1787,  five  members  voting  in  the 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

negative  on  the  motion  to  elect  him.  John  Breckinridge,  Pres- 
ident of  the  Lexington  Democratic  Society,  in  1793,  and,  after 
December  19,  1793,  Attorney  General  of  Kentucky,  and,  there- 
by, the  official  legal  adviser  of  Governor  Shelby,  five  years 
later  became  the  proponent,  in  the  Kentucky  Legislature,  of 
Jefferson's  "Kentucky  Resolutions  of  1798."  Humphrey 
Marshall  defeated  him  for  the  U.  S.  Senatorship  in  1795  but, 
in  1801,  Breckinridge  turned  the  tables  on  him  and,  in  1805, 
passed  from  the  Senate  to  the  post  of  Attorney-General  in 
Jefferson's  Cabinet.  He  was  Jefferson's  right-hand  man  in  the 
movement  to  acquire  Louisiana.  John  Brown  had  been  a 
student  in  Jefferson's  law  office  in  Virginia,  and  these  and 
other  ties  greatly  complicated  the  situation  in  Kentucky.  The 
affair  with  Genet  was  not  a  detached  episode  but  an  event 
inextricably  caught  in  the  intricate  web  of  state  and  national 
politics. 

But  insofar  as  Isaac  Shelby  is  concerned,  the  point  of  the 
whole  matter  is,  not  that  he  knew  of  the  scheme,  but  that  he 
knew,  or,  at  least,  felt  morally  certain,  that  it  would  fail.  The 
evidence  on  this  point  leaves  no  room  for  reasonable  doubt,  and, 
as  Frederick  J.  Turner  has  expressed  it,  "supports  Shelby's 
explanation"  of  November  15,  1794,  and  of  July  1,  1812.  It 
requires  no  assumption  of  senility  to  excuse  his  vigorous  and 
convincing  statement  of  the  latter  date.  The  remark  to  which 
Dr.  Henderson  has  given  place  in  his  article  that  "There  seems 
to  be  no  doubt  that  Shelby  has  clearly  fallen  into  error,  after 
the  lapse  of  years/'  etc.,  not  only  does  Governor  Shelby  an  in- 
justice in  its  implication  of  a  failing  or  untrustworthy  memory 
(a  favorite  fling  of  Roosevelt's),  but  it  is  out  of  harmony  with 
the  evidence.  More  than  a  year  after  the  letter  of  July  1,  1812, 
was  written  by  Governor  Shelby  to  Martin  D.  Hardin,  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Kentucky  had  strength  and  vigor,  both  mental  and 
physical,  sufficient  to  assemble,  command  and  lead  four  thou- 
sand Kentucky  volunteers  to  victory  in  Upper  Canada.  Hold 
him  responsible  for  whatever  faults  or  mistakes  he  may  fairly 
be  chargeable  with,  but  don't  try  to  excuse  him  by  making  him 
out  a  dotard. 

The  remark  last  referred  to  warns  the  reader  that  Governor 

10 


Isaac  Sh^elby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

Shelby  ha^  clearly  fallen  into  error,  after  the  lapse  of  years, 
"in  his  assertion  that  on  January  13,  1794,  he  was  assured  of 
the  failure  of  the  Franco-American  expedition  against  Louis- 
iana— unless,  indeed,  he  possessed  a  prophetic  vision,  based  on 
reliable  sources  of  'inside  information'  available  to  but  few." 
Shelby  does  not  say  that  he  ^'was  assured''  of  the  failure  but 
that  he  "saw  evidently  that  the  whole  scheme  of  Lachaise 
would  fall  to  the  ground  without  any  interference."  (Lachaise 
was  so  hard  up  that  he  tried  to  borrow  money  from  Shelby 
and  a  loan  was  refused. — See  Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Report,  1896, 
pp.  1105-1106.)  Again,  Dr.  Henderson  remarks,  "It  is  dif- 
ficult to  understand,  looking  at  the  events  after  the  lapse  of  a 
century  and  a  quarter,  how  Shelby  could  have  had  access  to 
sources  of  information  so  positive,  to  the  effect  that  the  French 
enterprise  would  not  even  be  attempted."  Why  is  this  so  dif- 
ficult? Shelby  was  on  the  ground;  he  had  been  one  of  the 
earliest  pioneers  to  Kentucky ;  he  had  been  continuously  a  resi- 
dent of  the  State  |or  ten  years ;  he  not  only  knew  but  was  known 
by  his  contemporaries  in  Kentucky  as  few  other  men  of  his 
time  were,  and  he  was  believed  in  and  trusted  by  the  vast 
majority  of  his  fellow-citizens.  Much  of  his  correspondence 
and  papers  of  that  period  has  been  lost  but  enough  for  that  and 
later  times  remains  to  show  that  he  was  advised  and  consulted 
about  public  affairs  by  practically  every  man  of  consequence 
in  Kentucky.  As  Governor  of  Kentucky,  he  came  into  fre- 
quent contact,  either  at  his  home,  "Traveller's  Rest,"  near 
Knob  Lick,  or  at  the  Executive  Mansion,  in  Frankfort  (in  later 
years  commonly  called  the  "Palace"),  with  all  the  prominent 
people  in  Kentucky.  One  of  the  first  acts  of  his  first  admin- 
istration was  to  commission  all  of  the  Militia  officers  of  the 
State,  practically  all  of  whom  were  personally  known  to  him. 
(See  Ms.  Exec.  Journal,  1792-1796.)  He  knew  that  George 
Rogers  Clark  had  "fallen  from  grace"  and,  to  a  large  extent, 
had  lost  his  influence  years  before  Genet  and  Michaux  and 
their  subordinates  appeared  upon  the  scene.  He  knew  that 
Clark  was  "broke"  and  was  "sore"  on  the  government;  he 
could  easily  have  learned  from  Logan  and  Nicholas,  his  neigh- 
bors, and  from  John  Breckinridge,  John  Bradford,  Robert  Pat- 

11 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

terson,  Levi  Todd  and  Thomas  Todd,  and  others  in  Lexington, 
how  sorely  in  need  of  funds  were  the  advocates  and  promoters 
of  the  proposed  filibuster,  and  he  had  had  abundant  military- 
experience  of  his  own  to  satisfy  him  that,  without  adequate 
funds,  the  expedition  must  inevitably  "fall  to  the  ground."  In 
these  circumstances,  and  others,  which  may  be  readily  imag- 
ined, it  did  not  require  "prophetic  vision"  to  forecast  the  fiasco 
which  did,  in  fact,  come  to  pass. 

The  population  of  Kentucky,  at  the  time  this  project  was 
being  agitated,  was  close  to  a  hundred  thousand  (100,000), 
with  approximately  fifteen  to  twenty  thousand  fighting  men 
available  for  service,  in  an  emergency.  How  many  of  these  did 
Clark  and  his  handful  of  noisy  associates  actually  muster? 
McElroy  (p.  171)  asserts  that  "Clark's  fame,  together  with 
these  glittering  promises,  induced  many  to  volunteer  for  the 
expedition,  *  *  *  confident  that  Clark  would  engage  in  no 
enterprise  which  he  believed  to  be  contrary  to  the  best  interests 
of  his  State  and  country."  "Many"  is,  of  course,  a  relative 
t«rm,  but  the  glib  historian  has  certainly  "drawn  a  long  bow" 
as  to  the  number  of  recruits,  and  the  public  confidence  in 
Clark,  at  that  time,  is  painted  in  brighter  colors  than  the  cold, 
unvarnished  facts  will  justify.  For  he  marshalled  not  exceed- 
ing two  hundred  (200)  at  the  outside,  barely  enough  for  a 
modem  Company,  at  full  strength,  or  for  what,  in  those  days, 
would  have  passed  for  a  "battalion."  (See  Am.  Hist.  Assoc. 
Report  for  1896,  p.  932.)  The  ''two  thousand  brave  Ken- 
tuckians"  mentioned  by  Auguste  Lachaise  (whom  I  am  tempted 
to  call  a  "four-flusher") ,  in  his  swan-song  letter  of  May  14, 1794, 
to  the  Democratic  Society  of  Lexington,  existed  only  on  paper 
or  in  the  fervid  imagination  of  the  sanguine  Creole.  They 
had  no  more  real  substance  than  Falstaff's  "rogues  in  buckram," 
whose  numbers  grew  with  repeated  telling  and  the  seeming 
exigencies  of  his  embarrassed  predicament.  Roosevelt  (Win- 
ning of  the  West,  Part  VI,  Chapter  II),  says:  "No  overt  act 
of  hostility  was  committed  by  Clark's  people,  except  by  some 
of  those  who  started  to  join  him  from  the  Cumberland  dis- 
trict, under  the  lead  of  a  man  named  Montgomery."  Also,  says 
Roosevelt,  "His  (i.  e,  Clark's)  agents  gathered  flat-boats  and 

12 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

pirogues  for  the  troops  and  laid  in  stores  of  powder,  lead  and 
beef.  The  nature  of  some  of  the  provisions  shows  what  a 
characteristic  backwoods  expedition  it  was;  for  Clark's  agent 
(John  Montgomery)  notified  him  that  he  had  ready  (at  what 
is  now  Clarksville,  Tennessee),  'upwards  of  eleven  hundred 
weight  of  Bear  Meat  and  about  seventy  or  seventy-four  pair 
of  Veneson  Hams.' "  And,  again,  "Some  of  the  Cumberland 
people,  becoming  excited  by  the  news  of  Clark's  preparation, 
prepared  to  join  him,  or  to  undertake  a  separate  filibustering 
attack  on  their  own  account."  Only  twenty-one  (21)  "free- 
booters" actually  reported  for  duty  at  the  mouth  of  Cumber- 
land River,  "allotted  as  the  place  of  Rendezvous."  (See  Penna. 
Gazette,  June  4, 1794,  and  Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Rep.  1896,  p.  1063.) 
All  of  this  happened,  it  will  be  observed,  outside  of  and  south 
of  Kentucky.  William  Blount,  Federal  Governor  of  the  "Terri- 
tory South  of  the  Ohio"  (now  Tennessee) ,  interposed  to  arrest 
the  unlawful  enterprise,  and  what  men  of  sober-minded  com- 
mon sense  thought  of  the  wild  scheme  is  well  expressed  by 
Thomas  Portell,  Commandant  at  New  Madrid,  in  a  letter  of 
January  17,  1794,  to  Gen.  James  Robertson.    Said  Portell: 

"I  have  never  doubted  but  that  the  thinking  people  of 
Kentucky  and  Cumberland  would  discountenance  any 
measure  that  tended  to  a  breach  of  that  happy  harmony 
and  good  understanding  that  subsist  between  the  two 
nations"  (i.  e.  Spain  and  the  United  States).  See  Am. 
Hist.  Assoc.  Report,  1896,  p.  1035. 

Dr.  Henderson's  argument  against  what  he  is  pleased  to  call 
"prophetic  vision"  by  Isaac  Shelby,  at  the  time  the  letter  from 
Shelby  to  Jefferson,  of  January  13,  1794,  was  written,  and  his 
charge  that,  in  1812,  "Governor  Shelby  has  clearly  fallen  into 
error,"  is  based  on  the  alleged  fact  that  "at  this  very  time  (i.  e. 
January  13,  1794),  General  George  Rogers  Clark  was  exten- 
sively circulating  throughout  Kentucky  his  'Proposals  for  rais- 
ing the  volunteers,  &c.'  "  Just  what  authority  there  is  for  this 
assertion,  that  Clark's  "Proposals"  were  being  "extensively 
circulated  throughout  Kentucky,"  I  am  not  at  this  moment 
aware. 

Certain  it  is  that  Clark  realized  the  need  of  circumspection, 

13 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

for,  in  writing  to  Genet  from  Louisville,  under  date  of  October 
3,  1793,  he  had  said: 

"I  find  that  I  shall  have  to  be  very  circumspect  in  my 
conduct  while  in  this  cuntry  and  guard  against  doing  any 
thing  that  would  injure  the  U  States  or  giving  offence 
to  their  Govt.,  but  in  a  few  days  after  seting  sail  we  shall 
be  out  of  their  Govermet  I  shall  then  be  at  liberty  to  give 
full  scope  to  the  authority  of  the  Commission  you  did  me 
the  Honour  to  send."  (Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Report,  1896, 
Vol.  I,  p.  1008.) 

Dr.  Henderson  proceeds  with  the  further  statement  that 
these  "Proposals"  were  "so  favorably  received  by  the  public, 
that  they  were  actually  set  forth,  in  full,  in  the  Centinel  of  the 
North-Western  Territory,  Cincinnati,  January  25,  1794."  The 
logic  of  this  proposition  is  not  very  obvious.  I  can't  see  that 
their  publication  in  a  newspaper  north  of  the  Ohio  River  and 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  General  Arthur  St.  Clair,  Federal 
Governor  of  that  territory,  points  to  a  "favorable  reception" 
in  Kentucky.  There  is  no  evidence,  that  I  know  of,  that  they 
had  ever  appeared  in  any  public  print  anywhere  in  Kentucky 
prior  to  their  publication  in  the  "Centinel  of  the  North-West." 
Furthermore,  this  publication  in  the  "CentineV  was  twelve 
days  AFTER  Shelby  had  dispatched  his  letter  to  Jefferson, 
Secretary  of  State.  Continuing,  Dr.  Henderson  informs  the 
reader  that  "contrary  to  Shelby's  statement,  quoted  above,  it 
appears  certain,"  etc.,  and  the  projectors  of  the  enterprise 
"were  so  emboldened  by  the  favorable  sentiment  in  Kentucky 
that  Lachaise  and  Depeau  had  the  temerity  to  address  the 
Governor  on  the  subject,  and  General  Clark  sent  forth  openly 
and  broadcast  his  'Proposals,'  etc.,  which  doubtless  were  read 
by  Governor  Shelby."  This  is,  to  some  extent,  reversing  the 
order  of  events.  Shelby's  "statement"  to  General  Wayne  bears 
date  February  10,  1794,  some  two  months  and  a  half  after 
LaChaise  and  DePauw  had  written  him  from  Knob  Lick,  on 
November  25,  1793,  (on  which  date  the  Governor  appears  to 
have  been  at  the  seat  of  Government,  in  Frankfort,  the  Legis- 
lature being  then  in  session) .  The  question  is,  what  was  Gov- 
ernor Shelby's  "estimate  of  the  situation,"  (to  use  a  modern 

14 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

military  phrase) ,  on  January  13,  1794,  and,  again,  on  February 
10,  1794,  and  not  what  may  have  been  the  mood  of  the  "pro- 
jectors of  the  enterprise"  in  the  end  of  the  preceding  Novem- 
ber. Dr.  Henderson  then  adds,  "As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  text 
of  the  'Proposals'  was  printed  at  Lexington  in  the  Kentucky 
Gazette  six  days  prior  to  the  date  of  Shelby's  letter  to  Wayne," 
i.  e.,  February  4th,  1794  (really  on  February  8th,  1794,  only 
two  days  prior  to  the  date  of  that  letter) .  But,  leaving  out  of 
view  the  fact  that  the  First  Amendment  to  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution and  Section  7  of  Article  XII  (the  Bill  of  Rights)  of 
the  First  Constitution  of  Kentucky,  were  then  in  full  opera- 
tion, guaranteeing  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  we  in- 
vite attention  to  the  fact  that  there  was  no  publication  of  these 
"Proposals"  in  the  "Kentucky  Gazette"  until  they  had  first' 
appeared  in  the  "Centinel  of  the  North-West,"  and  it  is  shown 
in  the  Gazette  that  they  had  been  copied  from  the  '^Centinel" 
If  the  Federal  Governor  of  the  Northwest  Territory  would 
tolerate  their  publication  in  a  newspaper  within  his  jurisdic- 
tion, why  might  not  an  editor  in  the  State  of  Kentucky  reprint 
them  with  impunity?  For  John  Bradford  (a  sketch  of  whose 
eventful  life  I  have  now  in  preparation),  this  much  must  be 
said  in  vindication  of  his  substantial  loyalty  to  the  Federal 
Government,  his  respect  for  the  Government  of  the  Common- 
wealth of  Kentucky,  and  his  essential  conservatism  (not  unlike 
that  of  Col.  George  Nicholas),  toward  this  business,  with 
which  he  undoubtedly  sympathized,  that  in  December,  1793, 
as  shown  by  a  letter  of  December  19,  1793,  written  by  him 
from  Lexington  to  M.  Chas.  DePauw,  at  Knob  Lick,  he  had 
informed  DePauw  that  so  much  of  his  "Address  to  the  Inhab- 
itants of  Louisiana"  as  declared  "That  the  Republicans  of  the 
Western  Country  are  ready  (to  go  down)  the  Ohio  and  Mis- 
sissippi," "is  inadmissible  into  the  Kentucky  Gazette."  To 
this,  Bradford,  a  warm  personal  friend  of  Shelby's,  added: 
"/  think  if  it  was  to  be  published,  it  would  excite  opposition  in 
the  Executive  of  this  State  to  the  measure."  How  could  it 
have  been  supposed  by  Bradford,  a  close  friend  of  Gov.  Shelby, 
that  the  latter  would  "oppose"  "the  measure,"  if  some  such 
intimation  had  not  been  conveyed  to  him  from  Governor 

15 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

Shelby  himself  or  if,  as  is  now  asserted,  Governor  Shelby  was 
"in  hearty  sympathy  with  the  movement?"  (For  Bradford's 
letter,  see  Report  of  Am.  Hist.  Assoc,  for  1896,  pp.  1023-1024.) 
And  if  such  unanimity  of  sentiment  favorable  to  the  enterprise 
existed  in  Kentucky  (as  has  been  represented),  why  should 
Bradford  have  hesitated  to  print  anything  DePauw  offered  or 
anything  he  pleased  about  it?  There  was  not  only  a  "Spanish 
party,"  but  a  formidable  Federal  element,  or,  perhaps,  it  would 
be  more  accurate  to  say,  a  strongly  conservative  element  in 
Kentucky,  as  well  as  the  party  of  "French  Democrats."  In 
this  connection,  may  I  be  allowed  to  say  that  I  do  not  think 
the  facts  warrant  the  statement  of  Dr.  Henderson  that  Gov- 
ernor Shelby  "vehemently  takes  sides  and  frankly  serves 
notice  on  Jefferson  that  personally  and  individually,  as  a  rep- 
resentative of  sentiment  among  the  inhabitants  on  the  'western 
waters,*  he  (Shelby)  is  in  hearty  sympathy  with  George  Rogers 
Clark  and  with  the  movement,  engineered  by  Genet,  which 
Clark  is  preparing  to  head."  I  do  not  think  Shelby's  letter  of 
January  13,  1794,  is  fairly  susceptible  of  any  such  interpre- 
tation. I  do  not  think  the  facts  by  any  means  warrant  the 
assumption  that  he  was  "in  hearty  sympathy  with  George 
Rogers  Clark  and  with  the  movement."  This  letter  of  Janu- 
ary 13,  1794,  manifests  acute  irritation,  on  the  part  of  the 
Governor,  but  its  language  is  frank  and  its  meaning  unmis- 
takable. Whatever  mental  reservations  the  astute  Secretary 
of  State  (Jefferson)  may  have  had,  when  he  wrote  his  two 
letters  of  August  29th,  1793,  and  November  6th,  1793,  this 
much,  at  least,  may  be  said  for  Governor  Shelby,  that  he  had 
nothing  to  conceal  and  was  absolutely  candid.  As  Parton  has 
remarked,  in  his  "Exploits  of  Edmond  Genet,"  in  reference  to 
a  paroxysm  of  rage  which  one  day  got  the  better  of  Washing- 
ton, "Happy  the  mortal  who  has  no  worse  fault  than  a  rare 
outburst  of  legitimate  and  harmless  anger!" 

Let  us  follow  Shelby's  course,  as  disclosed  by  the  evidence, 
and  see  if  there  was  any  sufficient  ground  for  distrusting  his 
fidelity  to  the  Federal  government.  In  his  letter  of  October 
5,  1793,  to  Jefferson,  written  nearly  a  month  after  Michaux 
had  called  upon  him  (Sept.  13,  1793),  with  a  letter  of  intro- 

16 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

duction  from  Jefferson,  dated  June  28th,  1793,  and,  of  course, 
after  the  arrival  of  Jefferson's  oflScial  letter  of  date,  August 
29th,  1793,  Shelby  said: 

"I  shall  be  particularly  attentive  to  prevent  any 
attempts  of  that  nature  from  this  country.  I  am  well 
persuaded,  at  present,  none  such  is  in  contemplation  in 
this  place.  The  citizens  of  Kentucky  possess  too  just  a 
sense  of  the  obligations  they  owe  the  general  government, 
to  embark  in  any  enterprise  that  would  be  so  injurious  to 
the  United  States." 

What  was  the  state  of  affairs  at  the  time  this  letter  was 
written?  Shelby  had  come  into  contact  only  with  Michaux, 
"a  man  of  unusual  intelligence."  When  Michaux  called  upon 
General  Ben.  Logan  (a  neighbor  and  friend  of  Shelby's),  on 
September  11th,  1793,  two  days  before  his  first  visit  to  Shelby, 
at  "Traveller's  Rest,"  he  found  that  the  project  was  looked 
upon  as  in  abeyance.  Says  Michaux  (Early  Western  Travels, 
Vol.  Ill,  pp.  39-40) : 

"I  confided  to  him  (Logan)  the  Commission  entrusted 
to  me.  He  told  me  he  would  be  delighted  to  take  part  in 
the  enterprise  but  that  he  had  received  a  letter  a  few  days 
previously  from  J.  Brown,  which  informed  him  that  nego- 
tiations had  been  begun  between  the  United  States  and 
the  Spaniards  respecting  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi, 
and  the  Creek  Indians ;  That  a  messenger  had  been  sent  to 
Madrid  and  that  any  one  of  the  United  States  that  would 
venture  to  act  in  a  hostile  manner  against  the  Spaniards 
before  the  return  of  the  first  of  December  next,  would  be 
disapproved  by  the  federal  Government." 

Logan  was  a  straightforward,  simple-hearted,  guileless 
kind  of  a  man,  and  he  evidently  took  this  advice  of  Brown's 
literally,  for,  under  date  of  December  31st,  1793,  we  find  him 
''once  more  offering  his  feeble  aid"  to  Clark.  (Am.  Hist.  Assoc. 
Rep.,  1896,  p.  1026.) 

Continuing,  Michaux  related  (Early  Western  Travels,  Vol. 
Ill,  p.  42): 

"The  17th  of  September  (1793)  visited  General  Clarke. 
I  handed  him  the  Letters  from  the  Minister  and  informed 
him  of  the  object  of  my  Mission.    He  told  me  that  he  was 

17 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

very  eager  for  the  Undertaking  but  that,  although  he  had 
written  so  long  ago  (Feb.  2  and  5,  1793),  he  had  received 
no  answer  and  thought  it  had  been  abandoned.  I  told  him 
that  his  letter  had  fallen  into  other  hands  and  that  the 
Minister  had  received  it  only  indirectly  after  his  arrival 
in  Philadelphia.  He  informed  me  that  a  fresh  circum- 
stance seemed  to  oppose  an  obstacle  to  it." 

Is  it  strange,  with  Clark  and  Logan,  the  two  principal  con- 
federates in  the  contemplated  expedition  in  Kentucky,  both 
regarding  the  project  as  in  suspense  or  abandoned,  that  the 
Governor  of  Kentucky,  a  little  more  than  two  weeks  later, 
should  have  written  Jefferson  as  he  did? 

On  September  28th,  1793,  two  weeks  after  Michaux's  visit 
and  one  week  before  Shelby  made  his  first  reply  to  Jefferson, 
Governor  Shelby,  at  the  instance  of  the  national  government, 
ordered  a  draft  of  troops  in  aid  of  Wayne,  in  his  pending  cam- 
paign against  the  Indians  north  of  the  Ohio,  and  this  draft  was 
entirely  successful.  On  October  24th,  1793,  Major-General 
Charles  Scott,  of  Kentucky,  with  one  thousand  (1,000)  mounted 
Kentuckians,  joined  General  Wayne  six  miles  north  of  Fort 
Jefferson  and  eighty  miles  north  of  Cincinnati.  (Collins,  Hist, 
of  Ky.,  Vol.  I,  p.  23.)  These  reinforcements  entered  the  ser- 
vice of  the  General  Government. 

In  the  light  of  the  evidence,  I  submit  that  Shelby's  letter 
of  October  5,  1793,  to  Jefferson  contained  an  absolutely  fair 
statement  of  the  situation,  asTTt/hen  existed. 

More  correspondence  ensued,  and  then  Shelby,  on  Febru- 
ary 10,  1794  (barely  a  month  after  his  letter  of  January  13, 
1794,  to  Jefferson),  wrote  General  Anffiony  Wayne,  among 
other  things,  as  follows: 

"I  can  assure  you  that  there  is  not  the  smallest  prob- 
ability that  such  an  enterprise  will  be  attempted;  if  it 
should,  the  Militia  of  this  State,  /  am  fully  persuaded, 
are  able  and  willing  to  suppress  every  attempt  that  can  be 
made  here  to  violate  the  laws  of  the  Union." 

There  are  two  statements  in  this  extract  which  invite  con- 
sideration: (1st)  the  improbability  of  the  filibuster  ever 
materializing;  (2nd)  the  ability  and  willingness  of  the  mili- 

18 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

tary  forces  of  Kentucky  to  repress  it;  and,  we  think  the  sequel 
will  show,  these  statements  demonstrate  that  Isaac  Shelby  was 
endowed  with  common  sense,  common  honesty,  and  sound 
judgment,  if  not  gifted  with  "prophetic  vision." 

Shelby's  official  legal  adviser,  until  December  19th,  1793, 
was  not,  primarily,  James  Brown,  Secretary  of  State,  but  Wil- 
liam Murray,  Attorney-General  of  Kentucky,  in  succession  to 
Col.  George  Nicholas,  who  had  resigned  shortly  after  his  ap- 
pointment on  June  15,  1792,  upon  the  establishment  of  the 
State  government.  John  Breckinridge,  an  outspoken  "Repub- 
lican," was,  on  December  19, 1793,  appointed  Attorney-General 
to  succeed  Murray,  a  staunch  "Federalist"  (who  had  served  a 
little  more  than  a  year),  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that 
Breckinridge,  rather  than  Brown,  advised  the  Governor  re- 
specting the  legal  aspects  of  the  case,  which  are  canvassed  by 
Governor  Shelby  in  his  letter  to  Jefferson  of  January  13,  1794. 
Breckinridge,  like  Senator  John  Brown,  had  been  a  friend  and 
(in  a  sense)  a  protege  of  Jefferson  in  Virginia,  and,  as  I  have 
pointed  out  above,  after  serving  as  U.  S.  Senator  from  Ken- 
tucky, was  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States,  in  the  cabi- 
net of  Jefferson,  during  a  part  of  Jefferson's  second  term.  He 
was  a  young  man,  when  he  came  to  Kentucky  in  1793,  but  was 
recognized  at  once  as  one  of  the  ablest  lawyers  in  the  West. 
The  advice  he  gave  Shelby  was,  from  a  legal  standpoint,  sound, 
as  subsequent  events  proved.  His  elder  half-brother,  Robert 
Breckinridge,  who  lived  in  or  near  Louisville,  in  Jefferson 
County,  was  the  first  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
of  Kentucky,  and  a  man  of  property,  sense  and  influence. 
Robert  Breckinridge  was  one  of  three  only  of  Kentucky's 
fourteen  delegates  to  the  Virginia  Convention  of  1788,  to  vote 
in  favor  of  the  ratification  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  and 
may  reasonably  be  counted  a  "Federalist."  He  held  the  office 
of  Speaker  at  the  time  he  wrote  to  Governor  Shelby  the  letter, 
now  to  be  considered.  He  was  also  a  Brigadier-General  in  the 
State  Militia.  This  letter,  bearing  date  10th  January,  1794, 
three  days  before  the  letter  from  Shelby  to  Jefferson,  and  just 
a  month  ahead  of  Shelby's  letter  to  General  Wayne,  will  be 

19 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

found  in  its  entirety  in  the  Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Report  for  1896, 
at  pp.  1032-1033.    I  quote  from  it  as  follows: 

"We  have  nothing  new  in  this  quarter  except  that 
there  is  some  little  stir  relative  to  the  intended  expedition 
against  the  Spanish  Settlements  on  the  Mississippi — A 
young  man  of  this  county,  communicated  a  writing  to  me, 
the  other  day,  on  that  subject  without  signature.  It  began 
with  'Geo.  R.  Clark  Esqr.  Majr  Genl  in  the  Armies  of 
France  and  Commander  in  Chief  of  the  French  Army  on 
the  Mississippi,'  and  proceeded  to  instructions  for  recruit- 
ing men  destined  for  that  Service.  This  pompous  title 
raises  the  expectations  considerably,  but  when  contrasted 
with  the  unhappy  situation  of  the  leader,  and  some  French 
men  about  him,  every  idea  of  carrying  the  scheme  into 
execution  droops. — I  sincerely  wish  the  French  Republic 
success,  but  if  that  nation  have  any  hopes,  or  our  General 
Government  any  fears,  from  this  mterpri^e,  both  will  be 
disappointed,  in  my  opinion. 

"A  proclamation  of  St  Glairs  appeared  at  the  Falls  the 
other  day  forbiding  the  Citizens  of  the  United  States, 
North  West  of  the  Ohio,  from  engaging  with  Certain 
French  men  in  that  expidition,  or  commidng  any  other  act 
which  might  envolve  the  United  States  in  a  war  with  the 
Spaniards,  and  to  observe  a  strict  neutrality  towards  all 
belligerent  powers." 

It  is  not  unlikely  that  this  letter  is  but  one  of  a  number  of 
similar  tenor  received  by  Governor  Shelby  from  leading  citi- 
zens throughout  the  State.  Taken  alone,  it  speaks  for  itself 
and  is  sufficient  for  the  purpose. 

But  let  us  here  place  by  the  side  of  it  some  extracts  from 
the  letter  of  February  16,  1794,  from  Shelby's  distinguished 
Secretary  of  State,  James  Brown: 

"The  information  which  has  reached  me  since  the  date 
of  my  last  letter/^  wrote  Brown  to  Shelby,  "has  induced 
me  to  accord  with  you  in  the  opinion  as  to  the  result  of  that 
enterprise;  and  has  fully  convinced  me  that  nothing  less 
than  a  considerable  supply  of  money  will  enable  the  pro- 
moters of  it  to  effectuate  their  intentions.  I  therefore 
clearly  concur  with  you  in  the  sentiment,  that  it  would  be, 
at  present,  unnecessary  to  take  any  active  measures  in  the 
business;  and  if  unnecessary,  it  would  certainly  be  impolitic 
to  exercise  powers  of  so  questionable  a  nature  as  those 

20 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

which  the  General  Government  have  adopted,  and  now 
wish  you  to  exert. 

"Indeed  it  appears  to  me  that  good  policy  will  justify 
the  Executive  of  this  country,  in  discovering  a  certain  de- 
gree of  unwillingness  to  oppose  the  progress  of  an  enter- 
prise, which  has  for  its  object  the  free  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi.  ♦  ♦  *  These  representations  could  not  be 
made  to  government  at  a  more  favorable  juncture.  Morti- 
fied at  finding,  etc.,  ♦  *  *  they  may  be  alarmed  at  the 
idea  of  our  detaching  ourselves  from  the  Union  at  so  crit- 
ical a  period.  I  am  therefore  happy  that,  whilst  you  have 
expressed  your  devotion  to  the  laws  and  constitution  of  the 
Union,  you  have  reminded  the  government  of  what  is  due 
to  us  as  a  State,  and  that  power  ought  not  to  be  assumed 
for  the  punishment  of  those  whose  object  is  to  do  what 
government  ought  long  ago  have  done  for  us."  (Butler's 
Hist,  of  Ky.,  Ed.  1836,  pp.  229-230;  and  Amer.  Hist.  Assoc. 
Rep.,  1896,  pp.  1040-1041.) 

Among  other  documents  transmitted  to  Congress  by  the 
President,  with  his  Special  Message  of  May  20th,  1794,  was  a 
Memorandum,  doubtless  furnished  him  either  by  St.  Clair  or 
Wayne,  from  which  I  make  the  following  quotations: 

"Mr.  John  S.  Gano,  of  Cincinnati,  North  West  Terri- 
tory, came  through  Kentucky,  was  at  Lexington  and 
Frankfort  six  days,  and  left  Lexington  on  the  8th  or  9th 
of  April  (1794). 

"He  says,  that  the  expedition  of  General  Clarke,  to 
open  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  which  had 
been  suspended  apparently  for  want  of  money,  had  again 
revived,  and  it  was  said  owing  to  a  supply  of  money  which 
had  arrived  by  a  Frenchman,  said  to  be  a  major,  but  whose 
name  the  informant  does  not  recollect.    *    «    ♦ 

"That  the  measure  of  the  expedition  was  openly  advo- 
cated, and  not  opposed  by  any  considerable  numbers,  but 
some  did  speak  against  it.  That  the  President's  proclama- 
tion had  been  received  in  Cincinnati,  but  he  did  not  see 
any  of  them  in  Kentucky."  (Am.  State  Papers,  2d  Ed. 
Vol.  2,  pp.  53-54.) 

This  paper  is  of  interest  here  as  showing  that  an  impres- 
sion prevailed  that  the  expedition  ''had  been  suspended,  ap- 
parently for  want  of  money."  It  will  become  of  interest  again, 
when  we  come  to  consider  the  President's  Message  of  May 

21 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

20th,  1794,  and  the  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  War  to  Gov- 
ernor Shelby  of  May  16th,  1794. 

Governor  Shelby  not  only  gave  explicit  assurance  of  his 
loyal  attitude  in  his  letter  of  October  5,  1793,  to  Jefferson,  but 
in  his  reply  to  DePauw,  from  Frankfort,  on  November  28, 1793, 
he  gives  DePauw  explicitly  to  understand  that  he  will  carry 
out  the  instructions  received  from  the  Federal  authorities  at 
Philadelphia.  He  recites  the  substance  of  these  instructions 
and  then  curtly  tells  his  ingratiating  correspondent  that  to  this 
charge  "I  micst  pay  that  attention  which  my  present  situation 
obliges  me."  This  is  no  more  nor  less  than  what  he  said,  in  a 
few  more  words,  in  the  concluding  paragraph  of  his  letter  of 
January  13th,  1794,  to  Jefferson,  viz: 

'^But  whatever  may  be  my  private  opinion,  as  a  man, 
as  a  friend  to  liberty,  an  American  citizen,  and  an  inhab- 
itant of  the  Western  Waters,  /  shall  at  all  times  hold  it  as 
my  duty  to  perform  whatever  may  be  constitutionally  re- 
quired of  me  as  Governor  of  Kentucky,  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States."  (Am.  State  Papers,  2d  Ed.  Vol.  2, 
pp.  38-40.) 

Nor  is  his  language  to  General  Wayne,  in  his  letter  of  Feb- 
ruary 10,  1794,  out  of  harmony  with  this.  Let  us  read  this 
language  again: 

"I  can  assure  you  that  there  is  not  the  smallest  prob- 
ability that  such  an  enterprise  will  be  attempted;  if  it 
should,  the  Militia  of  this  State,  I  am  fully  persuaded,  are 
able  and  willing  to  suppress  every  attempt  that  can  be 
made  here  to  violate  the  laws  of  the  Union.  (Butler, 
Hist,  of  Ky.,  2d  Ed.,  App.  p.  524.) 

What  was  the  position  and  predilection  of  the  Kentucky 
militia  and  of  the  great  mass  of  the  veterans  of  the  Revolu- 
tionary War,  then  in  Kentucky? 

This  question  may  be  answered,  in  part,  by  reference  to  the 
letter  of  July  5th,  1794,  from  Major  William  Price  to  Governor 
Shelby,  which  will  be  found  at  page  150  of  the  1913  Year  Book 
of  the  Kentucky  Society  of  Sons  of  the  Revolution.  (Major 
Price,  under  General  Scott,  joined  Wayne  on  July  26th,  1794.) 
It  is  even  more  positively  answered  by  the  historical  fact  that 

22 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

in  the  preceding  September,  in  response  to  Governor  Shelby ^s 
order  for  a  draft,  one  thousand  (1,000)  Kentucky  riflemen  had 
cheerfully  rallied  around  General  Charles  Scott  and  marched 
with  him  to  join  Wayne  eighty  miles  north  of  Cincinnati, 
where  they  arrived  on  October  24th,  1793.  The  season  being 
too  far  advanced  to  admit  of  an  offensive  campaign,  these  men 
returned  home  and  were  back  in  Kentucky,  when  Shelby  wrote 
to  Wayne,  on  February  10, 1794.  (Collins,  Hist,  of  Ky.,  Vol.  I, 
p.  23.)  The  question  is  even  more  emphatically  answered  by 
the  historical  fact  that,  in  the  month  of  May,  1794,  when  Gen- 
eral Henry  Knox,  Secretary  of  War,  speaking  in  the  name  of 
the  President,  called  on  Kentucky  for  reinforcements  to  help 
Wayne  in  his  memorable  campaign  of  that  year  against  the 
Northwestern  tribes,  some  sixteen  hundred  (1600)  mounted 
volunteers  from  Kentucky,  under  Major-General  Charles  Scott, 
whose  loyalty  nobody  ever  dared  to  question,  and  officered  in 
part  by  Brigadier-Generals  Thomas  Barbee  and  Robert  Todd 
(both  of  whom  had  apparently  lent  a  friendly  countenance  to 
the  French  intrigue),  responded  with  alacrity  to  this  appeal, 
and  this  formidable  force  (equal  in  number  to  the  ''regulars" 
under  Wayne),  rendered  most  effective  aid  in  winning  the  de- 
cisive battle  of  the  Fallen  Timber.  Contrast  this  prompt  re- 
sponse of  the  patriotic  sons  of  Kentucky  with  the  miserable 
showing  made  by  Clark  and  his  confederates  in  their  efforts  to 
raise  a  hostile  band  against  the  Spanish  possessions  in  Louis- 
iana, and  what  must  be  the  inference? 

When  the  French  enterprise  was  first  brought  to  Shelby's 
attention,  the  Commonwealth  of  Kentucky  was  barely  a  year 
old;  the  Federal  government  was  but  a  little  over  four  years 
old  and  by  many  still  regarded  as  an  experiment;  and,  as 
Frederick  Jackson  Turner  well  says,  in  reference  to  the  Genet 
program:  "The  details  of  its  inception  and  progress  reveal 
the  inchoate  condition  of  national  feeling  in  the  West/^  He 
might,  with  truth,  have  added  that  "national  feeling"  was 
scarcely  less  inchoate  in  the  East,  as  will  presently  be  shown. 

Before  I  leave  the  subject  of  the  justification  for  Governor 
Shelby's  confidence  that  the  Clark-Genet  expedition  must  end 
in  failure,  let  me  call  attention  to  the  "fallen  estate"  of  that 

23 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

one  time  military  hero  and  popular  idol,  George  Rogers  Glark. 
It  has  been  seen  what  was  thought  of  him  by  a  neighbor  and 
contemporary,  Robert  Breckinridge,  writing  Governor  Shelby 
on  January  10th,  1794.  Here  is  what  his  admirer  and  eulogist, 
Humphrey  Marshall,  had  to  say  of  him,  in  reference  to  his 
condition  in  1786: 

"General  Wilkinson,  who  was  at  the  Falls  of  the  Ohio, 
wrote  to  a  friend  in  Fayette,  *that  the  sun  of  General 
Clarke's  military  glory  was  set,  never  more  to  rise.'  There 
was  much  meaning  in  this  sentence,  which  those  who  had 
fathomed  Wilkinson  knew  how  to  interpret,  and  appre- 
ciate. 

"Rumors  were  indeed  unfavorable  to  General  Clark. 
But  those  rumors  were  set  afloat  by  his  enemies,  who 
wanted  an  apology  for  their  own  conduct;  and  who,  in 
their  turn,  were  accused  of  fomenting  the  insubordination 
of  which  they  availed  themselves  to  terminate  the  cam- 
paign. 

"Candour,  however,  extorts  a  confession,  which  is  made 
with  regret,  that  General  Clark,  at  this  time,  'was  not  the 
man  he  had  been.'  A  high  sense  of  injustice,  and  a  mind 
corroded  by  chagrin,  had  been  left  with  General  Clark  by 
the  government,  whose  territory  he  had  enlarged,  and 
whose  reputation  he  had  raised  to  renown;  which  in  the 
ennue  and  mortification,  incident  to  a  state  of  inaction, 
had  saught  extinguishment,  or  oblivion,  in  the  free  use  of 
ardent  spirits. 

"He  was  accused,  with  too  much  truth,  for  his  fame, 
with  frequent  intoxication;  even  in  his  camp."  (Marshall's 
Hist,  of  Ky.,  1812  Ed.,  pp.  291-292.) 

When  Governor  Shelby  became  a  candidate  for  Governor 
of  Kentucky,  in  1812,  Volume  I  of  Humphrey  Marshall's  His- 
tory of  Kentucky  was  all  that  had  been  published.  This  vol- 
ume only  brings  the  history  of  the  Commonwealth  down  to  the 
year  1791,  and,  of  course,  the  story  of  the  machinations  of 
Genet,  in  1793  and  1794,  is  not  developed.  In  this  first  edition 
of  Marshall's  History,  the  author  says  just  as  little  about  Isaac 
Shelby  as  it  was  possible  to  say;  whereas  he  devotes  pages  to 
Benjamin  Logan  and  George  Rogers  Clark  and  others  of  less 
fame.  As  to  Clark,  see,  for  example,  pages  94,  97.  Yet,  as 
Marshall  is  forced  to  admit,  seven  years  before  Genet  began 

24 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

his  operations  in  Kentucky  and  in  the  South  and  Southwest, 
Clark  had  sacrificed  his  leadership  and  forfeited  his  prestige 
by  excessive  indulgence  in  strong  drink.  The  expedition  of 
September,  1786,  against  the  Indians,  led  by  Clark,  was,  so  far 
as  Clark  was  concerned,  an  utter  and  ignominious  failure. 
(Marshall,  Hist,  of  Ky.,  Ed.  1812,  p.  290.)  (For  further  testi- 
mony to  Clark's  growing  habit  of  inebriety,  see  Cal.  Va.  State 
Papers,  Vol.  II). 

One  of  the  finest  and  noblest  characters  in  the  West  was 
General  Benjamin  Logan,  of  Kentucky,  and  Humphrey  Mar- 
shall cannot  praise  him  too  highly.  (See  Marshall's  Hist.  Ky., 
Ed.  1812,  pp.  60-72.)  Among  other  things,  he  says:  "The 
statesman's  eye  is  crowned  with  the  warrior's  brow;  and  a 
countenance  which  displays  an  unyielding  fortitude,  invites  to 
a  confidence  which  was  never  betrayed."  Yet  it  is  clear  from 
the  evidence  that  Logan  was  almost  as  deep  in  the  mud  as 
Clark  was  in  the  mire,  in  the  matter  of  the  Genet  expedition. 
It  does  not  in  the  slightest  degree  lessen  Logan  in  my  estima- 
tion that  this  was  so,  but  charity,  if  not  partiality,  demands  an 
even  more  complete  exoneration  of  the  character  and  conduct 
of  Isaac  Shelby,  whose  talents  were  as  great  and  character  as 
pure  as  that  of  Logan  or  any  of  his  associates  and  contempo- 
raries. 

It  is  noticeable  that  Humphrey  Marshall  says  not  a  word 
about  George  Rogers  Clark's  offer  of  his  sword  and  services  to 
Spain,  in  1788,  in  return  for  a  land  grant,  yet  the  fact  was 
notorious,  and  any  combination  with  the  Spaniards  was  an 
abomination  to  the  intolerant  Humphrey.  It  really  mattered 
little  to  Clark  under  whose  banner  he  served,  he  was  ready  to 
expatriate  himself  for  either  France  or  Spain,  and  his  military 
prowess  and  resources  were  always  at  the  disposal  of  the  highest 
bidder.  In  witness  of  this,  observe  how  he  threatened  and 
blustered,  when  he  called  upon  the  Virginia  Council  and  the 
Executive  of  Virginia  for  munitions  in  1776,  with  which  to 
checkmate  the  Transylvania  project  and  to  solidify  the  re- 
sistance to  the  Indians. 

Referring  to  the  proposed  expedition  against  Louisiana, 

25 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

Roosevelt   (Winning  of  the  West,  Part  VI,  Chap.  II),  has 
tersely  said: 

"It  was  a  piece  of  sheer  filibustering,  not  differing 
materially  from  one  of  Walker's  filibustering  attempts  in 
Central  America  sixty  years  later,  save  that  at  this  time 
Clark  had  utterly  lost  his  splendid  vigor  of  body  and  mind 
and  was  unfit  for  the  task  he  had  set  himself.'^ 

"A  la  tete  de  ces  flibu^tiers  des  Bois"  in  March,  1793,  wrote 
Pierre  Lyonnet,  a  Frenchman,  who  had  lived  in  New  Orleans, 
was  to  be  placed  this  same  George  Rogers  Clark.  (Am.  Hist 
Review,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  501.)  Clark's  claim  for  reimbursement 
from  "La  Republique  Francaise"  asks  pay  for — 

''A  une  Capttaine  1  lieutenant  et  100  hommes  pendant 
deux  Mois,  $1346."  (Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Rep.,  1896,  p. 
1072.) 

Concerning  this  "corporal's  guard,"  Clark  himself  wrote 
from  Louisville,  to  "The  Committee  of  Public  Safety,"  on 
November  2d,  1795: 

"I  think  unnesisary  to  inclose  a  Return  of  the  Recruits 
as  they  ware  (except  one  Company)  never  palled  to  the 
field  as  Col.  Fulton  will  fully  explain  to  you."  (Am. 
Hist.  Assoc.  Rep.,  1896,  pp.  1095-96.) 

The  closer  one  gets  to  the  "two  thousand  brave  Ken- 
tuckians,"  how  sadly  they  fade  away!  To  have  sent  an  army 
against  Clark  "and  Company"  would  have  been  more  futile 
even  than  the  monster  military  demonstration  launched  by  the 
General  Government  against  the  Whiskey  Insurgents  in  West- 
ern Pennsylvania,  concerning  which  Jefferson,  in  May,  1795, 
wrote  to  James  Monroe:  "An  insurrection  was  announced, 
and  proclaimed,  and  armed  against  and  marched  against,  and 
could  never  be  found.  (W.  W.,  Hist.  Am.  People,  Vol.  Ill, 
p.  137.) 

John  R.  Spears,  in  his  "History  of  the  Mississippi  Valley," 
published  in  1903,  makes  a  brief  allusion  to  Citizen  Genet  and 
his  Mississippi  Scheme,  at  page  371,  of  his  book,  as  follows: 

"Then  the  shadow  of  the  French  Revolution  reached 
out  to  the  United  States.    'Citizen'  Genet  was  sent  over  as 

26 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

Minister.  He  arrived  on  April  8,  1793.  He  brought  300 
blank  army  and  navy  commissions  with  him,  and  sent  an 
agent  to  Kentucky  to  enlist  enough  men  there  to  help  the 
French  of  New  Orleans  throw  off  the  Spanish  yoke.  George 
Rogers  Clark  was  the  chosen  head  of  this  proposed  expe- 
dition, although  for  years  he  had  been  a  common  drunk- 
ard. But  how  much  of  substance  there  was  to  the  intrigue 
appears  from  the  fact  that  Clark  received  only  $400  cash 
for  the  expenses  of  the  2,000  men  he  was  to  organize  and 
conduct  down  the  river." 

At  page  385,  Spears  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  Jeffer- 
son, who,  as  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  had  been 
in  correspondence  with  Governor  Shelby  regarding  the  designs 
of  Genet — 

"Had  idealized,  if  he  had  not  idolized,  the  French. 
He  had  spoken  of  the  excitement  raised  in  the  United 
States  when  'Citizen'  Genet  was  distributing  piratical 
commissions  from  Charleston  to  Philadelphia  as  a  revival 
of  the'Spintof  1776/" 

On  January  1st,  1794,  as  we  know,  President  Washington 
accepted  Jefferson's  resignation  from  his  cabinet,  and  Jeffer- 
son's post  as  Secretary  of  State  was  taken  by  Edmund  Ran- 
dolph, who  had  been  Attorney  General.  Washington  after- 
wards fell  out  with  Randolph  for  what  he  regarded  as  dis- 
loyalty, and  toward  the  close  of  the  year  1795,  practically 
''fired"  him  from  the  cabinet. 

As  Spears  points  out  (Hist.  Miss.  Valley,  p.  364),  as  early 
as  1786,  Clark  had  contemplated  a  filibustering  expedition 
down  the  river,  at  least  as  far  as  Natchez,  "but  nothing  was 
done."  Thus  it  was,  throughout  his  later  years,  from  the  time 
drink  began  to  get  the  better  of  him,  in  the  early  eighties,  until 
the  Genet  fiasco  and  later.  With  the  view  of  doing  something 
to  regain  his  lost  prestige  and  repair  his  broken  fortunes, 
Clark  was  spasmodically  planning  military  expeditions  on  a 
grand  scale  only  to  have  them  end  in  dismal  and  pathetic 
failure.  It  gives  me  no  pleasure  to  recall  these  things.  I  love 
and  admire  Clark  immensely  for  what  he  had  so  handsomely 
done,  in  the  brilliant  heyday  of  his  unspoiled  youth,  but  these 
unpleasant  truths  help  us  the  better  to  understand  why  Gov- 

27 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

ernor  Shelby  discounted  the  prospects  of  the  French  filibuster, 
looked  on  the  ingratiating  overtures  of  Lachaise  and  DePauw 
with  such  seeming  equanimity  and  viewed  the  flaming  mani- 
festo of  Clark  and  his  associated  firebrands  with  such  self- 
assured  composure.  Shelby  not  only  knew  Clark,  but  he  knew 
his  Kentuckians  also,  as  Humphrey  Marshall,  an  extreme 
partisan,  egotistical,  morose,  and  vitriolic,  never  did;  and  the 
"Hero  of  King's  Mountain"  was  not  to  be  thrown  into  a  panic 
by  loud  and  vociferous  talk. 

In  the  article  under  review,  Dr.  Henderson  quotes  from  an 
anonymous  communication  entitled  "The  Crisis,"  and  signed 
"An  Old-fashioned  Republican,"  which  was  published  in  the 
Kentucky  Gazette  for  February  8,  1794,  and  states  that  this 
incendiary  article  "closes  with  the  following  apostrophe,  pre- 
sumably  addressed  to  revolutionary  leaders,  among  whom 
George  Rogers  Clark  and  Isaac  Shelby  were  numbered,"  etc. 
The  logic  of  this  presumption,  I  do  not  assail,  but  the  propriety 
of  joining  Shelby  with  Clark  among  those  likely  to  respond 
favorably  to  the  passionate  appeal,  I  respectfully  question. 
The  population  of  Kentucky,  in  1793-94,  as  I  have  said,  was 
not  far  from  100,000  and  there  were  several  thousand  inhab- 
itants of  the  Commonwealth  at  that  time  who  had  formerly 
been  soldiers  of  the  Revolution.  In  ten  dignified  and  orderly 
Conventions,  running  through  a  period  of  eight  years  from 
1784  to  1792,  the  goal  of  statehood  had  been  slowly,  labori- 
ously and  patiently  sought.  If  one  would  correctly  under- 
stand the  temper  of  Kentucky  and  of  those  who  dominated  its 
thought  and  controlled  its  action  in  those  years,  he  must  study 
the  records  of  these  Conventions  and  of  the  Political  Club, 
which  existed  at  Danville  from  1786  to  1790.  The  temper  of 
the  "remaining  veteran  patriots,"  whom  the  author  of  the 
"Crisis"  article  apostrophizes,  may  fairly  be  gathered  from  the 
letter  of  July  5, 1794,  written  by  Major  William  Price,  of  Fay- 
ette County,  to  Governor  Shelby,  and  reproduced,  as  I  have 
previously  indicated,  at  page  150  of  my  1913  Year  Book  for 
the  Kentucky  Society  of  Sons  of  the  Revolution.  As  an  anti- 
dote to  Humphrey  Marshall's  prejudiced  and  distorted  views 
of  men  and  things,  read  Mann  Butler's  History  of  Kentucky, 

28 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

1836  Edition,  and  John  Ma^on  Brown's  "Political  Beginnings 
of  Kentucky,"  and  Judge  Alex.  P.  Humphrey's  Address  on  the 
"Political  Club."  Thomas  Marshall  Green's  "Spanish  Con- 
spiracy" is  an  able  reply  to  Brown  (who  was  then  dead,  and, 
of  course,  unable  to  make  any  rejoinder),  but  it  is  of  interest 
to  note  that  Green,  a  kinsman  of  Humphrey  Marshall,  but  a 
better-balanced  historian  and  a  thoroughly  fearless  and  out- 
spoken man,  nowhere  reflects  upon  Isaac  Shelby  in  his  narra- 
tive. Governor  Shelby  was  no  more  accountable  for  the  irre- 
sponsible utterances  of  any  self-styled  "Old-fashioned  Repub- 
lican," than  for  the  wild  ravings  of  any  other  thoughtless 
enthusiast  who  may  have  felt  impelled  to  break  into  print  or 
to  "breathe  out  threatenings"  against  constituted  authority. 
In  those  days,  any  man  "on  the  Western  Waters"  (Humphrey 
Marshall  himself  included) ,  could  print  and  publish  with  prac- 
tical immunity  anything  he  pleased,  being  answerable  only  for 
offensive  personalities.  Even  if  the  article  had  been  directed  at 
Shelby  (which  I  seriously  doubt),  surely  a  man  of  honor,  no 
less  than  a  pure  woman,  is  not  to  be  besmirched  by  the  indecent 
anonymous  proposals  of  a  blatherskite  or  a  blackguard,  and 
then,  as  now,  freedom  of  speech  and  the  liberty  of  the  press 
were  guaranteed  by  both  the  State  and  Federal  Constitutions. 
Lest  I  forget  it,  although  somewhat  out  of  place,  let  me  here 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  Charles  DePauw  (who  came 
over  with  LaFayette  in  1777,  became  a  useful  and  respected 
citizen  of  Kentucky,  and  whose  grandson  was  the  founder  or 
chief  benefactor  of  Depauw  University,  Indiana),  in  a  paper 
he  appears  to  have  furnished  Judge  Harry  Innes,  in  1807-08, 
certifies  among  other  things,  that: 

"Genet  gave  Lachase  but  Little  monny  to  come  with 
me  and  I  had  some  of  the  Burding  to  pay  for  him,  he  also 
rod  one  of  my  horses  and  was  willecom  at  my  table  gratis 
— it  is  it  is  a  well  knowing  feet  that  he  after  I  refused  him 
Loans  of  monny  he  went  to  governor  Schelby  and  re- 
quested a  Loan  of  monny  from  him  But  could  not  get  any, 
and  told  a  number  of  puple  he  would  expose  the  gov  for 
refusing  'is  request."  (Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Report,  1896, 
p.  1105.) 

29 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

If  Shelby  had  even  tacitly  approved  the  plot  that  was 
hatching,  is  it  likely  that  he  would  have  flatly  refused  Lachaise 
(a  Creole  of  Louisiana)  a  loan? 

In  this  connection,  let  me  call  attention  to  some  significant 
occurrences  that  tend  to  show  how  loose  as  yet  were  the  ties 
of  even  the  purest  patriots  to  the  Federal  Union. 

On  April  29th,  1793  (three  weeks  after  M.  Genet  had  landed 
at  Charleston,  S.  C,  and  ten  days  or  more  before  he  reached 
Philadelphia) ,  General  Henry  Lee,  Governor  of  Virginia,  wrote 
from  Richmond,  the  capital,  to  President  Washington  as  fol- 
lows: 

"As  soon  after  my  hearing  of  your  return  to  Mount 
Vernon  as  I  could,  I  set  out  on  a  visit  to  you,  but  unfor- 
tunately your  stay  at  home  was  so  short  that  I  could  not 
see  you.  I  had  reached  Stafford  Court-House,  when  I 
accidentally  learned  that  you  had  departed  on  the  previous 
Sunday ;  and  on  knowing  this  I  instantly  turned  back  from 
whence  I  came.  This  disappointment  would  have  always 
been  mortifying  to  me,  as  it  deprived  me  of  the  pleasure  of 
seeing  you ;  but  it  was  uncommonly  so  then,  as  I  had  vast 
solicitude  to  obtain  your  opinion  on  a  subject  highly  in- 
teresting to  me  personally. 

"Bred  to  arms,  I  have  always  since  my  domestic 
calamity  wished  for  a  return  to  my  profession,  as  the  best 
resort  for  my  mind  in  its  affliction.  Finding  the  serious 
turn,  which  the  French  affairs  took  last  year,  I  interposed 
with  the  Marquis  to  obtain  me  a  commission  in  their  army, 
and  at  the  same  time  made  the  same  application  in  an- 
other way.  The  Marquis,  about  the  time  he  got  my  letter, 
took  the  part,  which  issued  so  unfortunately  to  him.  From 
him  I  had  no  reply.  But  from  the  other  source  I  am  in- 
formed, that  a  Major-General's  commission  will  be  given 
to  me  on  my  appearance  in  Paris,  and  that  probably  that 
it  would  be  sent  to  me.  I  have  detailed  this  to  you,  merely 
that  your  mind  might  be  fully  informed,  inasmuch  as  the 
step  I  may  take  will  be  to  me  all-important,  I  am  conse- 
quently solicitous  for  the  best  advice,  and  this  I  am  per- 
suaded you  can  give.  Should  it  be  improper  on  your  part, 
much  as  I  want  it,  I  must  relinquish  the  hope.  But  as 
your  opinion  to  me  will  never  be  known  but  to  myself,  and 
as  I  ask  your  counsel  in  your  private  character,  I  feel  a 
presumption  in  favor  of  my  wishes. 

"If  fair  war  on  terms  of  honor,  with  certainty  of 

80 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

sustenance  to  the  troops,  and  certainty  of  concert  among 
the  citizens,  will  and  can  be  supported  by  France,  I  will 
embark.  If  the  reverse  in  any  part  is  probable,  to  go 
would  be  the  completion  of  my  lot  of  misery.  You  see  my 
situation ;  you  have  experienced  my  secrecy  in  my  younger 
days,  and  you  know  the  invincible  affection  I  bear  towards 
you.  Apprehend  no  improper  effects  of  your  free  opinion 
to  me."  (Sparks'  Writings  of  Washington,  Vol.  X,  pp. 
343-344,  note.) 

As  Dr.  Henderson  remarks  of  Shelby's  letter  to  Jefferson, 
of  January,  1794,  this  letter  from  Governor  Lee  to  President 
Washington,  "is  extraordinary  in  many  respects  as  coming 
from  a  governor  of  an  American  state  and  addressed  to  the 
general  government." 

To  this  letter,  Washington,  under  date  of  6th  May,  1793, 
wrote  from  Philadelphia  to  Governor  Lee  a  reply  marked 
''Private,"  from  which  the  following  extracts  are  taken: 

"On  Saturday  last  your  favor  of  the  29th  ultimo  was 
handed  to  me.  *  ♦  ♦  (After  referring  to  his  Proclama- 
tion of  April  22,  1793,  and  to  the  Indian  hostilities  on  the 
Western  frontiers,  he  proceeds) : 

"I  come  now  to  a  more  difficult  part  of  your  letter.  As 
a  public  character,  I  can  say  nothing  on  the  subject  of  it. 
As  a  private  man,  I  am  unwilling  to  say  much.  Give  ad- 
vice I  shall  not.  All  I  can  do,  then,  towards  complying 
with  your  request  is  to  declare  that,  if  the  case  which  you 
have  suggested  were  mine,  I  should  ponder  well  before  I 
resolved ;  not  only  for  private  considerations,  but  on  pub- 
lic grounds.  The  latter,  because,  being  the  first  magis- 
trate of  a  respectable  State,  much  speculation  would  be 
excited  by  such  a  measure,  and  the  consequences  thereof 
not  seen  into  at  the  first  glance.  As  it  might  respect  my- 
self only,  because  it  would  appear  a  boundless  ocean  I 
was  about  to  embark  on,  from  whence  no  land  is  to  be 
seen.  In  other  words,  because  the  affairs  of  (France) 
would  seem  to  me  to  be  in  the  highest  paroxysm  of  dis- 
order; not  so  much  from  the  pressure  of  foreign  enemies, 
for  in  the  cause  of  liberty  this  ought  to  be  fuel  to  the  fire 
of  a  patriotic  soldier,  and  to  increase  his  ardor,  but  be- 
cause those  in  whose  hands  the  government  is  intrusted 
are  ready  to  tear  each  other  to  pieces,  and  will  more  than 
probably  prove  the  worst  foes  the  country  has.  To  all 
which  may  be  added  the  probability  of  the  scarcity  of 

31 


A  Review  BY  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

bread,  from  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  contending 
parties,  which,  if  it  should  happen,  would  accelerate  a 
crisis  of  sad  confusion,  and  possibly  of  entire  change  in 
the  political  system. 

"Although  no  name  will  appear  in  this  letter,  I  beg  it 
may  be  committed  to  the  flames  as  soon  as  it  is  read.  I 
need  not  add,  because  you  must  know  it,  that  I  am  always 
yours."  (Sparks*  Writings  of  Washington,  Vol.  X,  pp. 
342-345.) 

The  tone  of  this  letter  is  conservative,  to  say  the  least,  and 
it  does  not  appear  to  frown  very  severely  upon  the  frank  sug- 
gestion that  the  distinguished  Governor  of  Virginia  was  seri- 
ously considering  accepting  a  commission  as  a  Major-General 
in  the  Armies  of  France.  There  is  said  to  be  a  vast  difference 
between  Philip  drunk  and  Philip  sober,  but  when  one  compares 
the  case  of  George  Rogers  Clark,  of  the  Western  wilderness, 
unhampered  by  official  obligations,  with  that  of  Henry  Lee,  of 
Tidewater  Virginia,  acting  Governor  of  his  native  State,  the 
offence  of  the  former  does  not  appear  to  have  been  so  heinous 
or  so  unforgivable  after  all;  and  the  behavior  of  Governor 
Shelby,  in  all  the  circumstances,  must  be  conceded  to  have  been 
unexceptionable. 

Going  back  a  moment,  it  is  interesting  to  note  how  softly 
Washington  himself  touched  on  the  somewhat  disturbing  de- 
velopments of  the  Genet  mission,  in  his  Message  ^n  f;nnp;rpgfi 
of  December  5,  1793.  (Am.  State  Papers^  Foreign  Relations, 
2d  Ed.,  Vol.  I,  pp.  49-50.) 

Here  is  his  exact  language: 

"It  is  with  extreme  concern,  I  have  to  inform  you,  that 
the  proceedings  of  the  person  (Genet),  whom  they  have 
unfortunately  appointed  their  minister  plenipotentiary 
here,  have  breathed  nothing  of  the  friendly  spirit  of  the 
nation,  which  sent  him;  their  tendency  on  the  contrary, 
has  been  to  involve  us  in  war  abroad,  and  discord  and 
anarchy  at  home.  So  far  as  his  acts,  or  those  of  his  agents, 
have  threatened  our  immediate  commitment  in  the  war,  or 
flagrant  insult  to  the  authority  of  the  laws,  their  effect 
has  been  counteracted  by  the  ordinary  cognizance  of  the 
laws,  and  by  an  exertion  of  the  powers  confided  to  me. 
Where  their  danger  was  not  imminent,  they  have  been 

32 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

home  with,  from  sentiments  of  regard  to  his  nation;  from 
a  sense  of  their  friendship  toward  us;  from  a  conviction 
that  they  would  not  suffer  us  to  remain  long  exposed  to 
the  action  of  a  person,  who  has  so  little  respected  our 
mutual  dispositions;  and,  I  will  add,  from  a  reliance  on 
the  firmness  of  my  fellow  citizens  in  their  principles  of 
peace  and  order. 

"In  the  mean  time,  I  have  respected  and  pursued  the 
stipulations  of  our  treaties,  according  to  what  I  judged 
their  true  sense;  and  have  withheld  no  act  of  friendship, 
which  their  affairs  have  called  for  from  us,  and  which 
justice  to  others  left  us  free  to  perform.  /  have  gone 
further;  rather  than  employ  force  for  the  restitution  of 
certain  vessels,  which  I  deemed  the  United  States  bound  to 
restore,  I  thought  it  more  advisable  to  satisfy  the  parties, 
by  avowing  it  to  be  my  opinion,  that  if  restitution  were  not 
made,  it  would  be  incumbent  on  the  United  States  to  make 
compensation.  The  papers,  now  communicated,  will  more 
particularly  apprize  you  of  these  transactions." 

Two  months  before  his  Proclamation  of  March  24th,  1794, 
warning  against  unauthorized  expeditions  against  the  terri- 
tory of  Spain,  President  Washington,  on  January  20th,  1794, 
sent  to  Congress  the  following  Message: 

"Having  already  laid  before  you  a  letter  of  the  16th 
of  August,  1793,  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  our  min- 
ister at  Paris,  stating  the  conduct,  and  urging  the  recall 
of  the  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  Republic  of  France, 
I  now  communicate  to  you,  that  his  conduct  has  been 
unequivocally  disapproved,  and  that  the  strongest  assur- 
ances have  been  given  that  his  recall  should  be  expedited 
without  delay."  (Am.  St.  Papers,  For.  Rel.,  2d  Ed.,  Vol. 
I,  p.  490.) 

One  can't  help  wondering  why  this  important  piece  of  news 
was  not  simultaneously  communicated  to  Governor  Shelby  and 
other  Southern  Governors  concerned. 

Shelby's  letter  of  January  13th,  1794,  must  have  reached 
the  Department  of  State  and  have  been  brought  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  President  early  in  February.  Under  date  of  Feb- 
ruary 23,  1794,  Christopher  Greenup,  at  that  time  a  Repre- 
sentative in  Congress  from  Kentucky  and  afterwards  a  Gov- 
ernor of  Kentucky,  wrote  Gov.  Shelby  from  Philadelphia,  ad- 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

vising  him  that  Fauchet  (Genet's  successor)  "arrived  last 
Friday,  and  was  introduced  to  the  President,  February  22." 
(Draper  Collection,  11  Clark  Mss.,  246.)  On  March  6,  1794, 
Fauchet's  Orders  were  inserted  in  the  "Centinel  of  the  North- 
western Territory,"  revoking  commissions  and  forbidding 
Frenchmen  to  violate  United  States  neutrality.  (Collins, 
Kentucky,  Vol.  II,  p.  113.)  Yet  not  until  March  24th,  1794, 
does  the  President  come  out  with  his  vigorous  Proclamation 
denouncing  the  abortive  expedition,  (Richardson's  Messages 
&  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  Vol.  I,  p.  157.)  And  not  until 
March  29th,  1794,  did  Edmund  Randolph,  Secretary  of  State, 
follow  this  up  with  his  labored  argument  to  demonstrate  the 
inconsistency  between  Shelby's  letters  of  October  5,  1793,  and 
January  13th,  1794;  attempt  to  lay  down  the  law  applicable 
to  the  case;  and  advise  the  Kentucky  Governor  that  negotia- 
tions for  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  were  progress- 
ing, and  that  the  new  French  Minister  (Fauchet)  had  dis- 
avowed the  expedition. 

In  my  opinion,  it  is  not  correct  to  say  that  Governor  Shel- 
by's letter  of  January  13th,  1794,  to  Jefferson,  precipitated 
President  Washington's  Proclamation  of  March  24th,  1794,  or 
as  Dr.  Henderson  puts  it:  "It  is  clear  that  the  President,  on 
the  basis  of  Shelby's  letter  of  January  13,  1794,  feared  that 
Shelby,  in  his  capacity  as  Governor  of  Kentucky,  was  strongly 
disposed  against  taking  drastic  action,  either  legal  or  military, 
in  suppressing  the  projected  freebooting  expedition.  Accord- 
ingly, taking  the  matter  into  his  own  hands,  he  issued  a  proc- 
lamation (March  24,  1794)  declaring,"  etc.  It  was  only  after 
Washington  had  become,  by  slow  degrees,  absolutely  sure  of 
his  ground,  that  he  put  forth  this  Proclamation.  Genet  was 
then  discredited  and  out  of  the  way,  and  his  successor,  Fauchet, 
more  than  two  weeks  before  (March  6,  1794)  had  publicly 
and  in  the  most  formal  and  emphatic  way  disavowed  the  hostile 
undertaking  with  reference  to  Louisiana.  If  the  "famous 
letter"  of  January  13,  1794,  was  so  disturbing  to  Washington, 
why  did  he  not  issue  his  Proclamation  instantly,  instead  of 
waiting  seven  or  eight  weeks  after  its  arrival  to  declare  him- 
self? 

34 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

The  official  records  show  that  Washington,  at  first,  did  not 
know  what  ought  to  be  his  attitude  toward  France  or  toward 
Genet,  the  representative  of  France,  in  view  of  our  treaty  rela- 
tions with  France,  and  he  proceeded  most  cautiously,  seeking, 
before  he  acted,  not  only  the  individual  and  joint  opinions  of 
the  four  members  of  his  cabinet,  but  also  the  opinions  of  the 
justices  of  the  Supreme  Court.  Here,  in  passing,  I  call  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  idea  of  a  post  at  Fort  Massac  was 
suggested  to  Wayne  as  early  as  May  17th,  1793  (Am.  St.  Papers, 
2d  Ed.,  Vol.  II,  p.  49).  Dr.  Henderson  (as  well  as  other 
writers)  refers  to  this  as  if  it  were  first  thought  of  by  the 
President,  at  the  time  he  issued  his  Proclamation  of  March  24, 
1794.  ''Washington  took  the  additional  step"  writes  Dr.  Hen- 
derson, ''of  directing  General  Wayne  to  'establish  a  strong  mili- 
tary post  at  Fort  Massac  on  the  Ohio.' "  etc. 

In  his  Message  of  November  15th,  1794,  Governor  Shelby 

had  said: 

"The  subject  now  became  serious  and  interesting,  and 
required  the  most  attentive  consideration;  for  although  I 
felt  no  apprehensions  that  the  intended  expedition  could 
be  carried  into  effect,  yet  I  entertained  too  high  a  sense  of 
the  obligations  due  to  the  General  Government,  to  refuse 
the  exercise  of  any  powers  with  which  I  was  clearly  in- 
vested. After  the  most  careful  examination  of  the  sub- 
ject, I  was  doubtful  whether  under  the  constitution  and 
laws  of  my  country,  I  possessed  powers  so  extensive  as 
those  which  I  was  called  upon  to  exercise.  Thus  situated, 
I  thought  it  advisable  to  write  the  letter  No.  5  (of  13th 
January,  1794),  in  which  all  the  information  I  had  re- 
ceived is  fully  detailed,  my  doubts  as  to  the  extent  of  my 
powers  carefully  stated,  and  the  strongest  assurances  given 
that  every  legal  requisition  of  the  General  Government 
should,  on  my  part,  be  punctually  complied  with.  To  this 
letter  no  answer  was  received  until  May,  1794;  at  which 
time  No.  6  (Randolph's  of  March  29th,  1794) ,  came  to  my 
hands.  In  the  former  part  of  this  letter  an  attempt  is 
made  to  remove  the  doubts  which  I  had  suggested,  and  to 
prove  that  I  might  comply  with  the  instructions  of  the 
General  Government ;  but  prior  to  the  receipt  of  this  letter, 
a  bill  had  been  brought  before  Congress  declaring  that  to 
embark  in  an  enterprise,  such  as  was  contemplated  by  the 
Citizens  of  this  State,  should  be  considered  as  criminal, 

35 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

and  directing  what  punishment  should  be  inflicted  on  those 
who  should  be  guilty  of  such  an  offense. 

''From  the  necessity  of  passing  that  law,  I  infer  that 
my  doubts  as  to  the  criminality  of  the  proposed  enter- 
prize  were  well  founded,  and  until  the  passage  of  that  law, 
the  offence  had  not  been  declared  nor  the  punishment  de- 
fined. But  before  the  receipt  of  this  letter,  or  the  passing 
of  the  'Act  in  addition  to  the  act  for  the  punishment  of 
certain  crimes  against  the  United  States,'  the  enterprize 
was  so  far  abandoned,  as  to  remove  every  apprehension  of 
its  being  carried  into  effect."  (Butler,  Hist.  Ky.,  Ed.  1836, 
pp.  525,  526.) 

When  Shelby  transmitted  this  Message,  he  was  not  quite 
forty- four  years  of  age,  and  in  the  prime  of  a  vigorous  man- 
hood. "Lapse  of  years"  had  not  clouded  either  his  intellect  or 
his  memory,  nor  had  intrigue  seared  his  conscience  or  seduced 
his  patriotism.  Now,  let  us  see  how  he  expressed  himself  to 
General  Martin  D.  Hardin,  on  July  1st,  1812,  and  judge 
whether  he  has  "clearly  fallen  into  error,  after  the  lapse  of 
years."    In  that  letter,  he  says: 

"There  is,  to  be  sure,  some  inconsistency  in  my  two 
letters  to  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  and  I 
saw  it  at  the  time,  but  at  the  date  of  the  last  (i.  e.  Jany. 
13,  1794),  I  saw  evidently  that  the  whole  scheme  of 
Lachaise  would  fall  to  the  ground  without  any  interference, 
and  that  the  present  moment  was  a  favorable  one,  while 
the  apprehensions  of  the  President  were  greatly  excited, 
to  express  to  him  what  I  knew  to  be  the  general  sentiments 
of  the  Kentucky  people,  relative  to  the  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi  and  the  Spanish  Government ;  those  sentiments 
had  often  to  my  knowledge  been  expressed  by  way  of 
petition  and  memorial  to  the  general  Government,  and  to 
which  no  assurance  nor  any  kind  of  answer  had  been  re- 
ceived, and  I  feel  an  entire  confidence  that  my  letter  of 
the  13th  of  January,  1794,  was  the  sole  cause  that  pro- 
duced an  explanation  by  the  special  commissioner.  Colonel 
James  Innes,  of  the  measures  that  had  been  pursued  by 
our  Government  towards  obtaining  for  us  the  navigation  of 
the  Mississippi ;  and  although  I  felt  some  regret  that  I  had 
for  a  moment  kept  the  President  uneasy,  I  was  truly  grat- 
ified to  find  that  our  right  to  the  navigation  of  that  river 
had  been  well  asserted  by  the  President  in  the  negotiations 
carried  on  at  Madrid.    ♦    ♦    ♦ 

36 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

"For  my  own  part,  I  cannot  attempt  to  combat  this 
mammoth  of  slander  (Humphrey  Marshall),  but  he  may 
be  asked  if  there  was  anything  like  conspiracy  in  all  this 
affair,  why  he  did  not  make  it  known  sooner?  The  whole 
correspondence  (was)  laid  before  the  Legislature  on  the 
15th  of  November,  1794,  upon  a  resolution  introduced  by 
himself  on  the  12th  of  that  month;  but  perhaps  it  was  he 
himself  that  prevented  any  order  being  taken  upon  them, 
lest  it  should  have  turned  out  to  my  advantage,  for  the 
Legislature,  I  understood,  were  well  pleased  with  the  part 
I  had  acted." 

I  can  discover  no  "error"  here,  but  an  accurate,  straight- 
forward rejoinder  to  the  injurious  aspersions  of  Shelby's 
implacable  enemy,  Humphrey  Marshall.  He  frankly  admits 
that  there  was  "some  inconsistency"  between  his  two  letters  to 
Jefferson,  but  there  is  no  trace  of  equivocation;  no  utterance 
that  can  fairly  be  characterized  as  "equivocal"  or  "dubious 
and  equivocal."  All  men  are  guilty  of  occasional  "inconsist- 
encies," and  this  need  not  be  a  matter  of  reproach,  but  men  of 
honesty  are  seldom  betrayed  into  "equivocal"  conduct  or 
"equivocal"  statements,  and  duplicity  was  never  a  trait  of  the 
man  whose  acts  are  under  consideration.  The  crowning  glory 
of  Isaac  Shelby  was  his  rugged  and  unwavering  honesty,  and 
it  is  not  without  significance  that  that  able  military  critic, 
General  John  Watts  DePeyster,  in  his  admirable  sketch  of  the 
Battle  or  Affair  of  King's  Mountain,  has  most  appropriately 
and  with  emphasis  called  him  "Honest  Shelby." 

Was  Governor  Shelby  warranted  in  supposing  that  the 
French  Filibuster  would  collapse,  at  the  date  of  his  second 
letter  to  Jefferson,  on  January  13,  1794?  We  will  let  Logan 
and  Clark,  as  reported  by  Michaux,  Washington,  as  disclosed 
by  his  Message  of  January  20th,  1794,  to  Congress,  General 
Robert  Breckinridge,  as  shown  by  his  letter  to  Shelby  of  Jan- 
uary 10th,  1794,  James  Brown,  as  shown  by  his  letter  to  Shelby 
of  February  16,  1794  (as  well  as  by  other  letters  of  Brown, 
apparently  not  preserved,  referred  to  by  Shelby  in  his  letter  to 
Hardin  of  July  1,  1812),  and  John  S.  Gano,  of  Cincinnati,  who 
was  at  Lexington  and  Frankfort  for  six  days  and  left  Lexing- 
ton for  Cincinnati  on  the  8th  or  9th  of  April,  1794,  and  re- 

37 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

ported  "that  the  expedition  of  Gen.  Clarke,  to  open  the  free 
navigation  of  the  Missippi,  which  had  been  suspended  appar- 
ently for  want  of  money,  had  again  revived,"  etc.  (Am.  St. 
Papers,  2d  Ed.,  Vol.  2,  p.  54),  answer  this  question.  These 
documents  will  also  answer  the  same  question,  as  applied  to 
Shelby's  letter  to  Wayne  of  February  10th,  1794.  I  submit 
that  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  these  documents  do  not 
contain  all  the  evidence  upon  which  Governor  Shelby  had  a 
right  to  rely  in  forming  his  opinion.  He  was  in  touch  with 
many  men  throughout  the  State,  and,  doubtless*  had  much  else 
to  go  on. 

Furthermore,  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  Washington  himself, 
in  his  message  of  May  20,  1794,  to  Congress  (Am.  St.  Papers, 
2d  Ed.,  Vol.  2,  pp.  35-36),  having  Gano's  report  of  April  10th, 
and  other  similar  data,  before  him,  had  said: 

''That  there  was  reason  to  believe  that  the  enterprise, 
projected  against  the  Spanish  dominions,  was  relinquished. 

''But  it  appears  to  have  been  revived  upon  principles 
which  set  publick  order  at  defiance,  and  place  the  peace  of 
the  United  States  in  the  discretion  of  unauthorized  indi- 
viduals. 

"The  means  already  deposited  in  the  different  depart- 
ments of  government,  are  shown  by  experience  not  to  be 
adequate  to  these  high  exigencies,  although  such  of  them 
as  are  lodged  in  the  hands  of  the  Executive  shall  continue 
to  be  used  with  promptness,  energy  and  decision  propor- 
tioned to  the  case.  But  I  am  impelled  by  the  position  of 
our  publick  affairs  to  recommend  that  provision  be  made 
for  a  stronger,  and  more  vigorous  opposition  than  can  be 
given  to  such  hostile  movements  under  the  laws  as  they 
now  stand." 

Does  not  this  corroborate  Governor  Shelby,  and  can  any 
one  wonder  that  Congress  should  have  thought  it  necessary  to 
enact  the  law  of  June  5,  1794,  which  manifestly  resulted  from 
Shelby's  letter  of  January  13,  1794,  and  the  President's  Mes- 
sage of  May  20th,  1794?  If  the  language  of  Washington,  in 
the  foregoing  extracts,  followed  by  the  enactment  of  the  law 
of  June  5,  1794,  does  not  bear  out  Governor  Shelby's  state- 
ment, in  his  "famous  letter"  of  January  13,  1794,  and  fully 
sustain  his  explanation  to  the  Kentucky  House  of  Representa- 

38 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

tives  on  November  15,  1794,  and  his  later  explanation  to  Gen- 
eral Hardin  on  July  1,  1812,  then  I,  for  one,  fail  to  compre- 
hend the  meaning  of  language.  Besides  this,  I  think  it  helps 
to  do  away  with  the  humiliating  apology,  based  upon  his 
assumed  ^'senility"  (at  the  ripe  age  of  62),  when  he  was  still 
able,  more  than  a  year  later  (in  August-October,  1813) ,  most 
vigorously  to  assemble,  command  and  lead  to  victory  an  army 
in  the  field,  and  it  also  disproves  his  alleged  lack  of  "political 
ability"  or  "political  good  sense,"  as  flippantly  charged  by 
Theodore  Roosevelt  in  his  "Winning  of  the  West."  Concern- 
ing Governor  Shelby's  performance  in  the  Thames  campaign, 
General  William  Henry  Harrison,  then  a  vigorous  youngster, 
reported  officially  to  the  Secretary  of  War:  "In  communi- 
cating to  the  President  through  you,  sir,  my  opinion  of  the 
conduct  of  the  officers  who  served  under  my  command,  I  am 
at  a  loss  how  to  mention  that  of  Governor  Shelby,  being  con- 
vinced that  no  eulogium  of  mine  can  reach  his  merit.  The 
Governor  of  an  independent  State,  greatly  my  superior  in 
years,  in  experience  and  in  military  character,  he  placed  him- 
self under  my  command,  and  was  not  more  remarkable  for  his 
zeal  and  activity  than  for  the  promptitude  and  cheerfulness 
with  which  he  obeyed  my  orders."   *    *    * 

After  passing  these  facts  in  review,  can  any  candid  man 
doubt  that  when  Governor  Shelby,  at  the  commencement  of 
his  campaign  for  the  governorship  in  1812,  addressed  the  "Free- 
men of  Kentucky,"  as  recorded  at  pages  529-531,  of  Butler's 
History  of  Kentucky,  Edition  of  1836,  he  told  the  truth,  the 
whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth?  Do  not  the  following 
sentences,  in  that  "Address,"  have  the  unmistakable  ring  of 
truth  and  sincerity  and  carry  conviction: 

"I  had  my  eye  upon  the  preparation  for  the  enterprize, 
and  was  prepared  to  stop  it  if  force  was  requisite.  But 
under  the  full  belief  that  the  project  would  die  a  natural 
death,  and  that  in  the  situation  in  which  the  public  mind 
then  was,  it  was  important  to  abstain  from  harsh  means, 
if  possible — that  at  the  period  when  the  preparation  were 
said  to  be  in  the  greatest  forwardness,  I  had  a  full  belief 
that  the  expedition  would  fail.  I  refer  to  my  letter  of  the 
lOth  Feb.  1794,  to  General  Wayne,  for  the  correctness  of 

39 


*    *    *    Again,  in  the  same  dispatch,  says  General  Harrison,  "The  venerable  Governor 
of  Kentucky,  at  the  age  of  sixty-six  (63),  preserves  all  the  vigor  of  youth",  etc. 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

this  opinion.  I  was  not  mistaken  in  my  calculations;  it 
eventuated  as  I  expected ;  and  I  hesitate  not  to  say,  had  I 
interfered  by  having  any  of  the  persons  concerned  arrested 
under  the  civil  authority  upon  suspicion,  as  the  law  then 
stood,  that  it  would  have  excited  heat  and  animosities,  and 
in  all  probability  it  would  have  proved  abortive;  and  if 
so,  it  would  have  promoted  instead  of  retarding  the  prep- 
arations. The  doubts  which  I  then  entertained  of  the  suf- 
ficiency of  the  laws  to  reach  the  case,  was  the  result  of 
candid  reflection,  and  the  best  advice  I  was  able  to  pro- 
cure only  tended  to  confirm  the  opinion,  that  until  the 
passage  of  the  law  of  Congress  of  the  5th  June,  1794,  the 
civil  authority  could  not  interfere  to  arrest  the  prepara- 
tions made  with  an  intention  of  commencing  an  enter- 
prize  against  a  neighboring  territory — that  law  was  intro- 
duced and  passed  in  consequence  of  my  letter  on  that 
subject;  it  was  immediately  communicated  to  me  by  the 
Secretary  of  State  of  the  U.  S. — besides,  the  want  of  an 
attorney  in  the  Federal  Court,  as  well  as  I  recollect,  put 
it  out  of  my  power  to  adopt  the  peaceable  measures  recom- 
mended in  the  letter  of  the  Secretary." 

In  referring  to  the  President's  Proclamation  of  March  24, 
1794  (p.  466,  Miss.  Valley  Hist.  Review,  Vol.  VI,  No.  4,  March, 
1920) ,  Dr.  Henderson  seems  to  intimate  that  Washington  was 
convinced  that  he  could  place  no  dependence  upon  Governor 
Shelby  in  the  matter  of  suppressing  the  threatened  expedition. 
That  this  was  not  so  and  that  Washington  had  not  lost  faith 
in  Shelby  is  established  by  two  circumstances,  to- wit:  (1)  In 
his  Message  of  May  20th,  1794,  to  Congress,  the  President 
informed  that  body  that  the  "enterprise  projected  against  the 
Spanish  dominions  *  ♦  ♦  appears  to  have  been  revived;" 
yet  (2)  the  feeling  of  the  Washington  Administration  toward 
Governor  Shelby  is  unequivocally  expressed  in  a  letter  from 
the  Secretary  of  War  to  Governor  Shelby,  bearing  date  May 
16th,  1794  (written  only  four  days  before  the  Message  to 
Congress),  which  contains,  among  other  indications  of  the 
fullest  confidence,  these  statements: 

"The  President,  confiding  in  the  patriotism  and  good 
disposition  of  your  Excellency,  requests  that  you  will  afford 
all  the  facilities,  countenance,  and  aid  in  your  power  to 
the  proposed   expedition    (of  Wayne   against   the   Ohio 

40 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

Indians)  from  which,  if  successful,  the  State  of  Kentucky 
will  reap  the  most  abundant  advantages. 


"I  have  conceived  it  to  be  my  duty  to  make  this  com- 
munication and  at  the  same  time,  in  the  name  and  author- 
ity of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  to  confide  to  your 
judgment/'  etc. 

Washington  was  neither  a  fool  nor  a  "stuffed  prophet,^  and 
I  have  a  well-grounded  suspicion  that  he  trusted  Isaac  Shelby, 
notwithstanding  his  "recalcitrant  and  defiant"  letter  of  Jan- 
uary 13,  1794,  even  more  implicitly  than  he  did  some  of  those 
advisers  who  were  closest  about  him,  or  others,  more  remote, 
who  were  loudest  in  their  protestations  of  allegiance.  We  know, 
at  least,  what  happened  in  the  cases  of  Edmund  Randolph  and 
Willie  Blount,  within  a  few  short  years  after  the  Genet  episode. 

For  my  part,  I  like  what  Charles  Jared  Ingersoll,  of  Phil- 
adelphia, distinguished  as  a  statesman,  diplomat  and  author, 
has  to  say  about  the  affair  in  his  interesting  book  of  "Recol- 
lections," which  appeared  in  1861.  These  are  his  remarks,  in 
part  (pp.  22-24) : 

"The  French  revolution,  which  began  in  1789,  had 
made  fearful  progress  in  1793.  *  *  *  Shot  from  that 
volcano,  as  it  were  a  bomb  across  the  Atlantic,  a  young, 
well-educated,  and  accomplished  firebrand  of  a  minister, 
Edmund  Genet,  fell  on  the  United  States  to  embroil  them 
in  hostilities  by  sea  against  Britain,  and  ashore  against 
Spain,  by  a  hostile  expedition  to  take  Louisiana;  to  enlist 
for  the  former  the  people  of  the  sea-ports,  arm  and  organ- 
ize for  the  latter  those  of  the  adjacent  Southwestern  popu- 
lation, to  be  led  to  that  enterprise  by  the  French  Minister 
as  their  commander.    *    *    * 

"Genet  pursued  both  (designs)  with  equal  ardor  and 
boldness;  caused  troops  to  be  enlisted  in  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia,  and  his  commission  was  accepted  by  no  less 
a  Kentucky  personage  than  General  George  Rogers  Clark, 
many,  if  not  most,  of  the  martial  people  of  that  enter- 
prising State,  just  admitted  in  the  Union  and  hardly  recon- 
ciled to  its  control,  excited  to  arm  under  the  French  Min- 
ister's command  for  the  conquest  of  Louisiana.  Such  con- 
siderate and  respectable  patriots  as  Isaac  Shelby,  the  first 
Governor;  Harry  Innes,  the  District  Judge  of  the  United 

41 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

States;  John  Brown  and  John  Breckinridge,  afterwards 
Senators  of  the  United  States;  Thomas  Todd,  afterwards 
Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  with 
many  more  of  Kentucky's  best  men,  submitted  reluctantly 
to  Secretary  Jefferson's  injunctions,  by  President  Washing- 
ton's directions,  laid  on  Governor  Shelby,  to  prevent  war- 
like irregularities  and  arrest  their  abettors,  under  the 
French  Minister's  instigation  to  organize  for  conquering 
Louisiana.  Still  palpitating  aversion  to  England,  inherited 
with  recent  independence,  not  achieved  without  treaties, 
armies,  navies,  and  treasures,  for  which  gratitude  was  due 
to  France,  were  sentiments  warming  Kentucky  hearts, 
which  Governor  Shelby  imbibed  at  King's  Mountain,  and 
with  his  fellow-countrymen  in  other  conflicts,  to  influence 
their  feelings  but  without  destroying  their  patriotism. 
Nothing  could  be  more  loyal  than  the  Governor's  answer 
to  Secretary  Jefferson: 

"  ^Whatever  be  my  private  opinion  as  a  man,  a  friend 
to  liberty,  an  American  citizen,  and  an  inhabitant  of  the 
Western  waters,  I  shall  at  all  times  hold  it  to  be  my  duty 
to  perform  whatever  may  be  constitutionally  required  of 
me,  as  Governor  of  Kentucky,  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States.'  "    (And  see  Meigs'  Life  of  Ingersoll.) 

My  opinion  is  that  Washington  understood  the  West  and 
sympathized  with  the  West.  At  any  rate,  he  was  not  to  be 
hastily  stampeded  by  unverified  rumors  of  local  disaffection. 
In  a  letter  of  22nd  December,  1795,  from  Philadelphia,  to 
Gouverneur  Morris,  then  abroad,  Washington  said: 

*^I  do  not  think  that  Colonel  (James)  Innes's  report 
to  the  Governor  of  Kentucky  was  entirely  free  from  ex- 
ceptions. But  let  the  report  be  accompanied  with  the 
following  remarks:  First,  that  the  one  which  Lord  Gren- 
ville  might  have  seen  published  was  disclaimed  by  Colonel 
Innes,  as  soon  as  it  appeared  in  the  public  gazettes,  on 
account  of  its  incorrectness.  Secondly,  an  irritable  spirit  at 
that  time  pervaded  all  our  people  at  the  westward,  aris- 
ing from  a  combination  of  causes  (but  from  none  more 
powerful  than  the  analogous  proceedings  of  Great  Britain, 
in  the  north,  to  those  of  Spain,  in  the  south,  towards  the 
United  States  and  their  Indian  borderers),  which  spirit 
required  some  management  and  soothing.  *  *  *  In  a 
government  as  free  as  ours,  where  the  people  are  at  liberty 
and  will  express  their  sentiments  (oftentimes  imprudently, 

42 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

and,  for  want  of  information,  sometimes  unjustly),  allow- 
ances must  be  made  for  occasional  effervesences."  (Sparks' 
Writings  of  Washington,  Vol.  XI,  pp.  99-100,  103.) 

I  am  sorry  to  see  that  Dr.  Henderson  cit^s  McElroy's 
book  ("Kentucky  in  the  Nation's  History")  as  an  authority. 
Ten  years  ago,  when  I  first  read  his  chapter  on  "One  Phase  of 
the  Genet  Mission,"  and  encountered  the  sentence  (p.  172) 
referring  to  Shelby's  reply  to  Jefferson  of  October  5,  1793, 
"Whether  Governor  Shelby  was  perfectly  open  and  honest  in 
this  statement  may  be  justly  questioned,"  it  was  with  a  feeling 
of  disappointment,  tinged  with  resentment  and  disgust.  Any 
man  who  feels  that  he  can  "justly"  question  the  "candor"  or 
"honesty"  of  Isaac  Shelby  is,  in  my  opinion,  an  utter  stranger 
to  his  true  character.  The  animadversion  by  McElroy  is  all 
the  more  obnoxious  to  me  because  it  emanated  from  a  Ken- 
tuckian  who  ought  to  have  known  better,  or,  at  least,  to  have 
expressed  his  doubts,  if  he  honestly,  though  mistakenly,  enter- 
tained them,  in  more  guarded  language.  McElroy's  book  rep- 
resents, I  freely  admit,  a  lot  of  hard  work  and  is  a  useful  com- 
pend,  but  it  is  essentially  a  "re-hash"  and  scarcely  deserves  to 
be  classed  as  a  product  of  original  or  thorough  research  or  a 
first-hand  historical  contribution,  in  any  sense  of  the  word. 
He  is  noticeably  careless  in  the  chapter  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred, in  that  he  makes  practically  no  use  of  the  important 
documents  published  as  Appendices  to  the  second  Edition  of 
Butler's  History  of  Kentucky,  virtually  ignores  Butler's  text,  and 
manifests  no  acquaintance  whatever  with  the  "Correspondence 
of  Genet  and  Clark,"  published  by  the  American  Historical 
Association  in  1896.  If  he  had  ever  so  much  as  heard  of  Fred- 
erick J.  Turner's  "Origin  of  Genet's  Projected  Attack  on  Louis- 
iana and  the  Floridas,"  published  in  Vol.  Ill,  of  the  American 
Historical  Review,  or  the  "Documents  on  the  Relations  of 
France  to  Louisiana,  1792-1795,"  published  in  the  same  volume, 
there  is  nothing  to  indicate  it.  The  Appendices  in  Butler,  Dr. 
Henderson  has  used,  to  some  extent,  but,  as  regards  Governor 
Shelby's  own  explanation  there  found,  its  effect  has,  in  a  meas- 
ure, been  neutralized  or  minimized  by  comments,  some  of  which, 
in  this  Review,  I  have  taken  leave  to  criticise. 

43 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

After  one  gets  to  know  his  character,  it  is  always  safe  to 
rely  on  Governor  Shelby's  honesty,  truthfulness,  fidelity,  and 
sound  sense,  and,  after  making  all  due  allowance  for  deficient 
information,  or  misinformation,  slips  of  memory,  and  the  in- 
roads of  advancing  age,  I  think  he  will  be  found  pretty  gen- 
erally accurate. 

In  conclusion,  I  must  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
very  first  question  discussed  by  the  Danville  Political  Club  (in 
1786)  was  the  one  of  pressing  and  superlative  importance  to 
the  people  of  Kentucky,  namely,  "Whether  the  immediate 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi  River  will  contribute  to  the  in- 
terest of  this  District  or  not?"  (The  Political  Club,  p.  107, 
Filson  Club  Pub.,  No.  9.) 

In  1786,  as  then  reported  to  the  people  of  Kentucky,  a 
proposition  had  been  submitted  to  the  Continental  Congress  by 
John  Jay  to  cede  to  Spain  the  control  of  the  Mississippi  for 
twenty-five  or  thirty  years.  This  caused  great  excitement  and 
unrest.  The  suggestion  of  surrendering  or  bartering  away,  even 
for  a  limited  term  of  years,  their  only  practicable  commercial 
outlet  to  the  sea  was  most  alarming.  A  convention  was  called 
(the  ad  interim  Convention  between  the  Fourth  and  Fifth  of 
the  entire  series  of  ten  which  preceded  the  attainment  of  State- 
hood), to  meet  at  Danville  in  May,  1787,  to  consider  the  sub- 
ject. It  met  but  adjourned  without  action.  The  long-suffering 
patience  of  Kentucky  on  this  vital  subject  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  the  treaty  negotiated  by  Thomas  Pinckney  with  Spain, 
whereby  the  right  of  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  was 
conceded,  was  not  officially  published  to  the  country  by  the 
National  administration  until  2d  August,  1796,  a  full  ten  years 
after  the  subject  had  first  begun  seriously  to  agitate  the  peo- 
ple of  the  Kentucky  district.  (See  Spears,  Hist.  Miss.  Valley, 
p.  374.) 

In  1793-94,  both  the  national  and  state  governments  were 
still  in  the  experimental  or  formative  stage — neither  had 
"found  itself."  And,  to  judge  the  situation  accurately,  one 
must  bear  in  mind  that  this  Genet  business  all  happened,  not 
in  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth,  but  in  the  end  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  when  the  federal  system  was  yet  in  its  infancy, 

44 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

and  State  Rights  and  State  Sovereignty  (both  now  apparently- 
reduced  to  a  minimum),  overshadowed  the  theoretical  suprem- 
acy of  the  "General  Government,"  as  it  was  then  called.  Wash- 
ington himself,  as  I  have  attempted  to  point  out,  was,  at  first, 
in  the  dark  as  to  the  nature  and  scope  of  our  treaty  obliga- 
tions to  France.  He  repeatedly  sought  the  advice  of  the  four 
members  of  his  Cabinet,  individually  and  collectively,  and  even 
submitted  a  list  of  questions  to  the  members  of  the  Supreme 
Court.  It  was  only  by  slow  degrees  that  the  National  Admin- 
istration, as  well  as  the  country  at  large,  came  to  know  where 
it  stood  with  reference  to  the  Genet  Mission.  Apart  from  his 
indiscreet  juvenile  zeal  and  his  tactless  manners,  the  capital 
mistake  of  Genet  was  in  supposing  that  Congress  was  sovereign 
and  supreme  in  everything.  He  played  his  cards  accordingly, 
and  lost. 

As  late  as  1842,  fifty  years  after  Genet  received  his  ap- 
pointment as  Minister  Plenipotentiary  to  the  United  States, 
John  Quincy  Adams,  of  Massachusetts,  an  ex-President  of  the 
United  States  and  then  a  member  of  Congress,  had  the  hardi- 
hood, on  behalf  of  certain  of  his  constituents,  to  offer  to  pre- 
sent in  the  House  of  Representatives  a  Petition  praying  a 
peaceable  dissolution  of  the  Union,  because  of  the  tolerance  of 
slavery,  and  was  severely  arraigned  for  it  by  Thomas  F.  Mar- 
shall, of  Kentucky,  at  that  time  representing  the  "Ashland" 
District. 

It  is  right  that  Isaac  Shelby  should  bear  whatever  blame 
may  be  justly  attributable  to  him  for  his  sentiments  and  con- 
duct, provided  judgment  is  based  upon  what  he  actually  said 
and  did  and  not  upon  groundless  surmise,  malicious  slander,  or 
bare  suspicion.  But  to  one  who  carefully  and  impartially 
studies  and  earnestly  strives  to  understand  the  situation  of  all 
the  actors  concerned,  such  blame,  if  any,  will  not  amount  to  a 
very  great  deal.  More  than  this,  to  say,  as  Roosevelt  does, 
with  characteristic  unfairness,  cocksureness  and  flippancy 
(Winning  of  the  West,  Part  VI,  Chap.  II),  that  Shelby 
"possessed  no  marked  political  ability,  and  was  entirely  lack- 
ing in  the  strength  of  character  which  would  have  fitted  him 
to  put  a  stop  to  rebellion  and  lawlessness"  and  "did  not  possess 

45 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

sufl&cient  political  good  sense  to  appreciate  either  the  benefits 
of  the  Central  Government  or  the  need  of  preserving  order," 
is  not  only  to  fly  in  the  face  of  the  established  facts  but  is  to 
contradict,  without  cause,  all  that  we  know  and  believe  of  him 
from  both  authentic  history  and  well-accredited  tradition. 

Clark's  "freebooting  expedition"  was  not  exactly  a  "colos- 
sal bluff,"  but  rather  a  "colossal  bubble" — a  fizzle,  a  fiuke,  a 
fiasco.  It  was,  as  Henry  Lee  characterized  it,  after  his  first 
enthusiasm  had  cooled,  a  "Quixotic  adventure."  The  moun- 
tain labored  and  brought  forth  a  mouse.  And  as  for  the  dash- 
ing young  diplomat,  Genet,  all  that  need  be  said  is  that,  with 
the  ratification  and  promulgation  of  the  proposed  Franco- 
British-American  defensive  alliance,  now  awaiting  final  action 
by  the  U.  S.  A.,  the  France  of  today  may  realize  what  her 
revolutionary  government  claimed  of  us,  in  vain,  in  1792-1794. 

ADDENDA 

1.  Jefferson's  letter  to  Shelby  was  dated  November  6,  not 
Nov.  9th;  whereas  Knox's  letter  bore  the  latter  date, 
November  9th,  1793,  and  Jefferson's  letter  was  enclosed 
with  it.  This  is  shown  correctly  in  the  "Star  of  Empire" 
but  not  in  the  Miss.  Valley  article  (p.  454). 

Knox  (Sec'y  of  War),  on  the  same  dat€  (Nov.  9th,  1793) 
wrote  Arthur  St.  Clair,  enclosing  a  copy  of  Jefferson's 
letter  to  Shelby.  (See  Am.  St.  Papers,  2d  Ed.,  Vol.  2, 
p.  47.)  St.  Clair  did  not  receive  this  letter  until  Decem- 
ber 2d,  1793.  Five  days  later  (Dec.  7th,  1793)  he  issued 
his  Proclamation. 

2.  With  reference  to  the  publication  of  George  RogersClark's 
"Proposals"  in  the  Kentucky  Gazette  of  February  8th  (not 
4th),  1794,  and  which  were  introduced  with  the  words 
"From  the  Centinel  of  the  Northwestern  Territory,"  at- 
tention is  invited  to  the  fact  that  Arthur  St.  Clair's  Proc- 
lamation of  December  7th,  1793,  is  published  immediately 
below  the  above  "Proposals."  (See  Ky.  Gazette,  Numb. 
XXI,  Vol.  VII,  Saturday,  8th  February,  1794.) 

3.  The  Resolution  referred  to  (at  page  468,  Miss.  Valley 
Review) ,  as  having  been  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly 
of  Kentucky  on  December  20,  1794,  was  really  adopted  at 
the  legislative  session  of  November-December,  1795,  and, 

46 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

of  course,  nearly  a  year  before  Thomas  Pinckney  was 
commissioned  as  Envoy  to  Madrid.  The  confusion  results 
from  a  reference  to  this  1793  Resolution  in  the  Resolution 
of  November  12,  1794,  calling  on  Governor  Shelby  for 
"such  information  as  he  may  have  received  from  the  Sen- 
ators of  this  State  in  Congress  or  from  any  department  of 
the  General  Government,  on  the  subject  of  the  above- 
mentioned  resolution/^  that  is,  the  resolution  of  1793. 
(Ms.  Journal,  House  of  Reps.,  of  Ky.,  1st  Session,  3d 
Genl.  Assembly,  pp.  39-40;  Wednesday,  Nov.  12,  1794.) 
The  Governor's  Message  of  November  15,  1794,  resulted. 

4.  The  1st  Session  of  the  2d  General  Assembly  of  Ken- 
tucky was  held  in  Frankfort,  Ky.,  from  4th  November, 
1793,  to  21st  December,  1793,  both  inclusive.  The  orig- 
inal Ms.  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  at  page 
1,  opens  with  this  recital: 

"General  Assembly  begun  and  held  for  the  State  of 
Kentucky,  at  the  house  of  Andrew  Holmes,  in  the 
Town  of  Frankfort,  on  the  Kentucky  river,  on  Mon- 
.  day,  the  fourth  day  of  November,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord,  one  thousand,  seven  hundred  and  ninety-three; 
and  in  the  second  year  of  the  Commonwealth,"  etc. 

Under  date  of  Monday,  December  16,  1793,  at  pages 
145-146,  of  said  House  Journal,  appears  the  follow- 
ing: 

"A  memorial  of  sundry  Inhabitants  of  this  Com- 
monwealth, whose  names  are  thereunto  subscribed, 
was  presented  and  read,  setting  forth  the  distressed 
situation,  in  which  an  arbitrary  and  unjust  controwl 
by  a  Foreign  power  of  the  navigation  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, has  placed  the  Citizens  of  this  State,  the  feeble 
attempts,  if  any,  which  have  been  made  by  the  Fed- 
eral Government,  to  obtain  it,  the  great  tendency, 
the  want  of  it  has,  to  throw  a  damp  on  the  industry 
of  the  present  Inhabitants  of  our  infant  Country,  to 
prevent  the  emigration  of  industrious  Citizens  from 
other  parts,  and  requesting  that  the  Legislature  would 
take  such  measures,  by  instructing  our  Representa- 
tives in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  otherwise, 
to  obtain  the  free  use  and  navigation  of  that  River; 
and  also  require  from  them,  information  of  the  meas- 
ures, if  any,  which  have  been  taken,  by  Government 
for  that  purpose. 

47 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

"Ordered,  That  the  said  memorial  be  referred  to 
the  Committee  of  Propositions  and  grievances,  that 
they  examine  the  matter  thereof  and  report  the  same 
with  their  opinion  thereupon  to  this  House." 

Under  date  of  Friday,  December  20th,  1793,  at  pages 
167-168,  of  said  House  Journal,  also  appears  the  follow- 
ing: 

"Mr.  Crockett  from  the  Committee  of  Propositions 
and  grievances  reported  that  the  Committee  had, 
according  to  order,  taken  into  consideration  the 
memorial  of  sundry  Inhabitants  of  this  State,  respect- 
ing the  free  navigation  of  the  River  Mississippi,  and 
come  to  the  following  resolution  thereupon,  which  he 
delivered  in  at  the  Clerk's  table,  where  it  was  twice 
read  and  agreed  to  by  the  House: 

"Whereas,  it  appears  to  the  General  Assembly,  that 
the  free  and  uninterrupted  navigation  of  the  River 
Mississippi,  is  not  only  the  natural,  unalienable  right 
of  the  Citizens  of  this  Commonwealth,  but  that  it 
has  been  acknowledged  so  to  be  by  Solemn  Treaty, 
and  that  it  is  the  Duty  of  the  Representatives  of  the 
People  to  assert,  as  much  as  is  in  their  power,  that 
right: 

"Resolved,  that  the  Senators  of  this  State,  in  Con- 
gress, be  and  are  hereby  directed,  to  assert  that  right 
to  the  General  Government,  and  demand  an  account 
of  what  measures  have  been  taken,  to  obtain  it,  and 
to  transmit  such  information,  from  time  to  time,  to 
the  Executive  of  this  State,  as  they  shall  receive. 

"Ordered  that  Mr.  Crockett  do  carry  the  said  Reso- 
lution to  the  Senate  and  desire  their  concurrence." 

Under  date  of  Friday,  December  20th,  1793,  at  pages 
173-174,  of  said  House  Journal,  there  appears  the  follow- 
ing entry: 

"A  message  from  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Caldwell. 
"Mr.  Speaker: 
"The  Senate  concur  in  the  resolution  respecting 
the  free  navigation  of  the  River  Mississippi. 
"And  then  he  withdrew." 

The  Ist  Session  of  the  3d  General  Assembly  of  Ken- 
tucky was  held  at  the  Capitol  ("Public  Buildings"),  in 

48 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

the  Town  of  Frankfort,  Ky.,  from  3rd  November,  1794,  to 
20th  December,  1794,  both  inclusive. 

Under  date  of  Wednesday,  November  12,  1794,  at  pages 
39-40,  of  the  original  Ms.  Journal  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, appears  the  following: 

"The  house  then,  according  to  the  standing  orders 
of  the  day,  resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the 
Whole  house  on  the  State  of  the  Commonwealth.  Mr. 
McDowell  was  elected  to  the  chair  and  after  some 
time  spent  therein,  Mr.  Speaker  (Robt.  Breckinridge) 
resumed  the  Chair  and  Mr.  McDowell  reported  that 
the  Committee  of  the  whole  house  has,  according  to 
order,  taken  into  consideration  the  State  of  the  Com- 
monwealth, and  has  come  to  a  resolution  thereupon, 
which  he  delivered  in  at  the  Clerk's  Table,  where  it 
was  since  read  and  agreed  to  by  the  house  as  follows: 

"Whereas  a  Resolution  passed  the  General  Assem- 
bly at  their  last  session,  for  instructing  the  Senators 
of  this  State,  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  to 
assert  the  rights  of  the  Citizens  of  this  Common- 
wealth to  the  free  and  uninterrupted  navigation  of 
the  Mississippi,  and  to  demand  an  account  of  what 
measures  have  been  taken  to  obtain  it,  and  to  transmit 
such  information,  as  they  shall  receive,  from  time  to 
time,  to  the  Executive  of  this  State,  whereof  it  is 
probable,  that  the  Governor  of  this  State  hath  before 
this  time  received  communications  on  this  very  in- 
teresting subject.  Therefore, 

"Resolved  that  the  Governor  be  requested  to  lay 
before  this  house,  such  information  as  he  may  have 
received  from  the  Senators  of  this  State  in  Congress, 
or  from  any  department  of  the  General  Government, 
on  the  subject  of  the  above  mentioned  resolution." 

"A  message  from  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Johnson. 

"Mr.  Speaker: 
"I  am  directed  by  the  Senate  to  lay  before  this 
house  sundry  letters  and  papers,  containing  a  corre- 
spondence between  the  Executive  of  this  State  and 
the  Secretary  of  War.  Also,  an  amendment  proposed 
by  Congress  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  which  have 
been  communicated  to  the  Senate  by  the  Governor. — 
And  he  withdrew. 

"Whereupon  the  said  letters  were  read  and  ordered 
to  lie  on  the  table." 

49 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

Under  date  of  Saturday,  November  15th,  1794,  at  page 
50,  of  said  House  Journal,  there  appears  the  following: 

"The  Speaker  laid  before  ^he  house  a  letter  from 
the  Governor  with  sundry  ktters  and  papers  inclosed, 
containing  a  correspondence  between  the  Executive 
of  this  State  and  the  Secretary  of  the  United  States, 
which  were  read  and  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table." 

Under  date  of  Saturday,  December  20th,  1794,  it  is  re- 
corded in  said  House  Journal,  near  the  close  thereof  on  a 
page  not  numbered,  that  "The  Governor  approved  and 
signed  a  Resolution  respecting  the  navigation  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi." But  whether  this  entry  has  reference  to  the 
Resolution  of  December  20th,  1793,  or  to  the  Resolution 
of  November  12,  1794,  is  not  made  clear,  though  it  would 
appear  to  refer  to  the  former  resolution.  Why  the  signing 
of  the  Resolution  had  been  so  long  deferred  by  the  Gov- 
ernor is  also  a  matter  of  uncertainty,  unless  the  formality 
had  been  inadvertently  overlooked.  He  had  certainly  acted 
in  obedience  to  the  resolution. 

In  the  Preface  to  Butler's  History  of  Kentucky,  the 
author  says: 

"In  the  complexion  of  many  events,  as  well  as  the 
character  of  most  of  the  early  statesmen  of  Kentucky, 
this  work  differs  from  that  of  Mr.  Marshall,  wide  as 
the  poles.  The  public  must  determine  between  him 
and  the  author.  Mr.  Marshall  enjoyed  opportunities 
of  contemporary  intercourse  and  observation,  which 
the  author  freely  acknowledges  have  been  unrivaled. 
Yet  while  sagacity  and  original  information  are  fully 
and  sincerely  accorded  to  the  primitive  historian  of 
Kentucky,  the  author's  solemn  convictions  of  histor- 
ical duty  extort  his  protest  against  the  justice  and 
impartiality  of  the  representations  of  his  competitors 
in  public  life.  The  author  painfully  feels  the  com- 
pulsion of  making  this  declaration;  much  as  he  re- 
spects the  talents  and  public  services  of  Mr.  Mar- 
shall, now  silvered  with  venerable  age.  Yet  he  owes 
it  to  himself,  he  owes  it  to  that  posterity,  who  may 
feel  curious  to  investigate  the  conduct  of  their  ances- 
tors, to  declare,  as  he  most  solemnly  does,  his  convic- 
tion that  every  man  and  party  of  men,  who  came  into 
collision  with  Mr.  Marshall  or  his  friends,  in  the  ex- 
citing and  exasperating  scenes  of  Kentucky  story, 

50 


Isaac  Shelby  and  the  Genet  Mission 

have  been  essentially  and  profoundly  misrepresented 
by  him,  however  unintentionally,  and  insensibly  it 
may  have  been  done.  The  contentions  between  this 
gentleman  and  his  competitors  for  public  honors,  have 
been  too  fierce  to  admit  of  justice  to  the  character  of 
either,  in  each  other's  representations.  These  enmities 
have  transformed  his  history  into  a  border  feud,  re- 
corded with  all  the  embittered  feelings  of  a  chieftain 
of  the  marches.  Yet  his  picturesque  portraits  of  the 
pioneers  of  Kentucky,  distinct  from  party  influences, 
have  ever  given  the  author  the  utmost  delight. 

"But  to  have  been  opposed  to  Mr.  H.  Marshall  in 
the  political  struggles  of  Kentucky,  seems  to  have 
entailed  on  the  actors,  a  sentence  of  conspiracy,  and 
every  dishonerable  treachery.  Our  Shelby,  Innes, 
Wilkinson,  Messrs.  John  and  James  Brown,  Nicholas, 
Murray,  Thomas  Todd,  and  John  Breckinridge,  have 
been  thus  unjustly  denounced  by  Mr.  Marshall.  The 
author  of  this  work,  appeals  from  this  sentence  of  an 
ancient  antagonist,  to  a  generation  which  has  arisen, 
free  in  a  great  degree,  from  the  excitements  of  the 
times  in  question." 

The  following  Commission  is  owned  by  and  now  in  the 
possession  of  William  McMillan,  Esq.,  of  Paris,  Ky.,  who 
is  a  grandson  of  Wm.  McMillen,  the  officer  named  in  the 
Commission,  the  original  of  which,  in  pen  and  ink,  bears 
the  well-known  autograph  of  George  Rogers  Clark.  This 
copy  was  made  from  the  original  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson,  on 
6th  July,  1920. 


GEORGE  ROGERS  CLARK  Major  General  in  the 
Armies  of  France  and  Commander  in  chief  of  the  French 
Revolutionary  Legion  of  the  Mississippi. 

To  William  McMillen,  Know  you  that  by  the  special 
confidence  &c.  reposed  in  your  Courage,  Ability,  Good 
Conduct  &  Fidelity;  &  by  the  power  Invested  in  me  by 
the  Minister  of  FRANCE,  I  do  appoint  you  Captain  in 
the  (Second-?)  Battalion  of  the  2nd  Regiment  of  In- 
fantry to  serve  in  an  Expedition  designed  against  the 
Spaniards  of  Louisiana  &  Floridas  by  order  of  Citizen 
Genet,  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  French  Repub- 
lic. All  persons  whom  it  may  concern  are  requested  to 
pay  due  Attention  to  you  as  such. 

51 


A  Review  by  Samuel  M.  Wilson 

Given  under  my  hand  at  Louisville  this  ye.  9th  day  of 
January,  1794,  &  in  the  2nd  year  of  the  French  Republic; 
One  and  indivisible.  G.  R.  Clark. 


A  similar  commission  to  Captain  Henry  Lindsay, 
bearing  date  the  11th  January,  1794,  is  in  the  Durrett 
Collection  (University  of  Chicago  Libraries),  and  an- 
other to  Captain  John  Cochran,  bearing  date  the  15th 
January,  1794,  is  in  the  Draper  Collection  (State  His- 
torical Society  of  Wisconsin),  in  the  form  of  a  news- 
paper reprint,  crediting  the  original  to  Colonel  R.  T. 
Durrett 's  library,  now  owned  by  Chicago  University. 
(See  Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Report,  1896,  Vol.  1,  pp.  1033- 
1034.) 


52 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below, 
or  on  the  date  to  which  renewed.  Renewals  only: 

Tel.  No.  642-3405 
Renewals  may  be  made  4  days  i^rior  to  date  due. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


HfcC'DLD    JUNia  7>j-lU4fll«>g 


r 


1L_ 


LD21A-20m.3,'73  it^i^fX'ihrluZr^!^  / 


50020; 


-rVl/^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


